A Critical! Investigation! of! an! Animated South! African ... · A Critical! Investigation! of! an! Animated South! African! Advertising! Campaign:!Vodacom’s!Mo#the#MeerkatCampaign2005>2007!

A Critical Investigation of an Animated South African Advertising

Campaign: Vodacom’s Mo the Meerkat Campaign 2005-2007

Kim Hoffmann

A Research Report submitted to the Faculty of Arts, University of the Witwatersrand,

Johannesburg, in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts

in Digital Arts by Coursework and Research Report.

Johannesburg, 2011

ii

Abstract

This critical investigation of the relationship between animation and advertising in

South Africa provides both a historic overview and analysis of Vodacom’s Mo the

Meerkat campaign. This campaign is documented as extensively as possible, by

investigating all relevant aspects and decisions made by Vodacom, their advertising

agency, Draftfcb, as well as the creative influence and participation by the animation

studios and film companies involved in the campaign. A textual and stylistic analysis of

all six advertisements produced as part of this campaign is conducted and explores

issues of personality, performance and brand identity relating to the Mo the Meerkat

character. This documentation and analysis establishes that a major South African

advertiser chose to use an animated character in their campaign to act as a “spectacle”

(as the term is defined by Andrew Darley in his text Visual Digital Culture. Surface Play

and Spectacle in New Media Genres).

iii

Declaration

I hereby declare that this dissertation is my own work. It is submitted for the degree of

Master of Arts at the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. It has not been

previously submitted for any degree or examination at any other university.

Kim Hoffmann

8th day of August, 2011

iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge and thank my Supervisor, Prof. Christo Doherty, for his

guidance and encouragement over the past year, which has proven invaluable especially

during the research process.

I would also like to thank the following individuals for participating in my research and

for granting me access to further information: Rachel Andreotti, Brett Morris, Rita

Doherty, Hilton Treves, Darryn Hofmeyr, Bruce Paynter, Peter Pohorsky, and Tony

Koenderman. Without their assistance, this report would not be as comprehensive as it

is.

Lastly, I would like to thank Rael Schmulian and my family for their support and

understanding.

v

Contents

Chapter 1: Animation and Advertising: An Overview 1

1.1 History of the Animated Television Commercial 1

1.1.1 Internationally

1.1.2 South Africa

1.2 Key Concepts 8

1.2.1 Advertising as a Mode of Practise

1.2.2 Advertising and Semiotics

1.2.3 Advertising and the Spectacle

1.2.4 Postmodernism and the Visual

Chapter 2: An Animated South African Advertising Campaign:

A Case Study 22

2.1 Background of the Campaign 22

2.1.1 History of the South African Mobile Telecommunication Industry

2.1.2 Vodacom’s Engagement with Advertising

2.1.3 Draftfcb

2.1.4 Draffcb’s Engagement with Animation

2.2 Vodacom’s Mo the Meerkat Campaign, 2005-2007 35

2.2.1 Vodafone Live!

vi

2.2.2 Vodacom

2.2.3 Audience Reception-‐ Awards and Surveys

2.2.4 In Conclusion

Chapter 3: An analysis of Mo the Meerkat 57

3.1 Brief Description 57

3.1.1 Meerkat Stripper

3.1.2 Meerkat Congaline

3.1.3 Dance King/ Can’t Touch This

3.1.4 Meerkat Whip/ Mo’s Girlfriend

3.1.5 Roller skate Mambo

3.1.6 Meerkat Cruise/Mo Watch

3.2 Analysis 63


3.2.2 Meerkat Congaline


3.2.4 Meerkat Whip/Mo’s Girlfriend

3.2.5 Roller skate Mambo

3.2.6 Meerkat Cruise/Mo Watch

3.3 In Conclusion 76

3.3.1 Personality in the Mo the Meerkat Character

3.3.2 Character Design and Performance

3.3.3 Mo as a Signifier

vii

Chapter 4: Assessments and Conclusions 82

4.1 Assessments 82

4.1.1 Animated Characters and Brand Identity

4.1.2 ‘Art vs. Science’ – Strategy and Creativity in an Advertising Context

4.1.3 Audience Reception

4.1.4 Re-‐contextualisation and the Spectacle

4.2 In Conclusion 93

Appendix A: Interview Transcripts 97

Rachel Andreotti

Rita Doherty

Brett Morris

Tony Koenderman

Bruce Paynter

Hilton Treves & Darren Hofmeyr

Appendix B: Description of attached DVD 170

Works Cited 171

viii

List of Figures

Page

1 Film still from Meerkat Stripper 47

2 Film still from Can’t Touch This 47

3 Film still from Rollerskate Mambo 47

4 A cropped still from Meerkat Stripper 64

5 An image of a meerkat taken from the Meerkat Manor page of the Animal

Planet website 64

1

Chapter One: Animation and Advertising - An Overview

1.1 History of An Animated Television Commercial

This section of the chapter will give a brief history of the animated television

commercial in America and Britain, where these first emerged, as well as in South

Africa. The remainder of this chapter will then consist of an introduction to advertising

as a mode of practise and related issues, which will serve as a theoretical framework for

the animated television commercial.

1.1.1 Internationally

The use of animated commercials in the United States dates as far back to the

beginning of the cinematic era, in which animation legends such as Walt Disney and Ub

Iwerks started their careers creating commercials using “cut-‐out1” animation for the

Kansas City Film Ad Company in 1918 (Maltin 30). Animated commercials were shown

in cinemas accompanied by a 6-‐7 minute animated theatrical short film and the main

live-‐action feature. Other famous names included Otto Messmer, who worked on short

animated commercials in 1914 before being hired by Pat Sullivan to create the

animated character Felix the Cat (Maltin 55). However, the early history of the American

cinema industry was dominated by America’s participation in the two World Wars,

which established animation as the medium of choice for propaganda and information

films which were also shown in cinemas and served as a public relations tool for the

1 ‘Cut-out’ animation is a technique that makes use of flat characters, props and backgrounds cut from materials

such as paper, card, stiff fabric as well as photographs, which are then animated using stop frame animation.

2

American government (“Episode 1: The Art of Persuasion”; Walt Disney Treasures).

Animation, as a graphic medium, made it possible to illustrate ideas by

simplifying these to a set of pictures and therefore made this medium ideal for

propaganda films, as they were able to present serious information in an entertaining

and palatable form (“Episode 1: The Art of Persuasion.”). Propaganda films in America

ridiculed Hitler and his government which aided in building the morale of soldiers and

civilians. Information films were used by different Government departments to deliver

important public messages and urged civilians to support the war effort by participating

in various initiatives (such as recycling and paying your taxes, for example) (“Episode 1:

The Art of Persuasion.”). The Walt Disney Studios emerged as the primary producer of

American Propaganda films during World War II. These films starred well known

characters such as Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Pluto and Goofy and were extremely

popular amongst cinema goers (Walt Disney Treasures).

However, even though the Disney Studios emerged as the forerunners in

animated propaganda production in America, they did not make the same impact on the

animated television commercial market. This was believed to be because Walt Disney

felt uncomfortable with the fact that he did not hold the rights to characters created for

advertising purposes and because the studio was reliant on the clients approval at

different stages which slowed down production (Korkis 1).

The introduction of the television set and the commercialisation of the National

Broadcasting Commission in the United States of America at the beginning of the 1940s

marked a shift from animated commercials and the traditional animated theatrical

short shown in cinemas, to animation in a television context (Cohen 36). Successful

network radio programmes that had previously been broadcast by the Radio

3

Corporation of America were moved to television and marked the inception of

commercial television broadcast in the United States of America (Roman 27). Even

though television commercials date back as far as 1941, the animated television

commercial business only started to flourish after World War Two, towards the end of

the 1940’s. This can be directly attributed to the fact that television set production was

abandoned during war time, as aluminium, which was used to build sets was rationed.

However, television did not cease to exist, but was allocated mainly to broadcasting

news, sport and safety information (Cohen 38).

Similar to the animated cinema commercial, the television medium forced

animators to communicate ideas to audiences in much shorter time spans, as the

duration of an animated commercial was seldom longer than a minute, as opposed to

the six to seven minute theatrical short that animators were more familiar with. The

television medium also forced animators to work without the use of colour and on a

smaller screen. This resulted in animators who worked in TV commercials developing a

simple graphic language with thick outlines and exaggerated features (such as large

heads and facial features and accentuated actions and emotions) (Amidi 12). Another

outcome of the television era was that animators started using limited animation, which

sacrificed fluid, lyrical movements, as the traditional, full animation used for theatrical

animation in the past had become too time-‐consuming and expensive (“Episode 1: The

Art of Persuasion.”). This was seen not only in animated television commercials, but

even more so in animated television series produced towards the end of the 1950’s and

during the 1960’s as budgets for such series where extremely meagre (Amidi 13).

Animation studio Hanna Barbera, founded in 1957, became synonymous with such

limited animation produced for television, creating memorable shows such as The

4

Huckleberry Hound Show (1958), Quick Draw McGraw (1959), The Flintstones (1960)

and The Yogi Bear Show (1961). Characters from these shows, such as Huckleberry

Hound, Yogi Bear and Quick Draw McGraw, also featured during the advertising breaks

worked into the shows and served as brand ambassadors for various products, mainly

Kellogg’s’ children’s cereals. The founders, Bill Hanna and Joe Barbera, understood that

for these shows as well as the accompanying advertisements to be successful, the

limited animation style needed to be compensated for with a distinct graphic style and

characters with personality (Amidi 40).

Animation was regarded as an ideal medium for advertising as it had the

intrinsic ability to grab audience’s attention because animated characters stood out

from the other live-‐action commercials (Cohen 42). As a result, the demand for

animated television commercials rose to the extent that more than 35 commercial

animation studios in the mid 1940’s and the end of the 1950’ were formed to cater for

advertiser’s needs. In addition, the established major studios such as Disney and

Terrytoons created in-‐house units to deal with the demand for animated commercials.

Furthermore, during the mid 1950’s when animated commercials were at their peak,

one-‐minute animated commercials were typically awarded budgets of between eight

and nine thousand dollars, which was more per minute than the six to seven minute

theatrical short had ever seen. By the end of the 1950’s, Television magazine estimated

that four out of the six favourite commercials on television were animated (Amidi 12).

Animated television commercials in Britain followed a similar course. Animation

was also used for propaganda and information films by the British government and the

Ministry of Information and were shown in cinemas during the Second World War

(“Episode 1: The Art of Persuasion.”). However, it was the first British animated feature

5

film, an adaptation of George Orwell’s political allegory, Animal Farm, animated by the

British company Halas & Bachelor between 1952 and 1954, that drew advertisers’

attention to the British animation industry (Bendazzi 153). Thus, when ITV, Britain’s

oldest commercial television network, was launched in 1955, animation was suddenly

in demand to fill the newly introduced advertising breaks (“Episode 1: The Art of

Persuasion.”). Even though Britain was at the forefront of broadcast experiments during

the 1930’s and launched regular public broadcasting as early as 1936, the publicly-‐

funded and government-‐regulated British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was not in

favour of ‘sponsored television’ (advertisements), as they called it, in fear that

advertisers would be able to dictate the programming content (Crisell 28; Curry 35).

Again, as seen in America, animators had to adapt the style they used previously

for propaganda and information films, as television commercials allowed them much

less time and less sophistication with which to get their messages across (“Episode 1:

The Art of Persuasion.”).

1.1.2 South Africa

As discussed in the previous section, the animated television commercial in both

Britain and the United States originated from animated commercials for cinema as well

as both countries’ strong tradition of animated war-‐time propaganda. However,

animated television commercials became commonplace when ‘advertising breaks’ were

introduced when commercial television broadcast launched in the United States after

the Second World War, towards the late 1940’s, and in Britain in 1955. However, the

animated television commercial in South Africa did not follow the same course. For

6

political reasons, television in South Africa was only launched in 1976, which meant

that cinema remained popular until well into the 1970’s and that South Africa’s primary

means of animation production was for advertising purposes (Kersh 1-‐3).

Unlike in Britain and the United States, local production for cinema release in

South Africa was limited to a live-‐action newsreel and animated commercials, which

were added to pre-‐packaged bundles (consisting of an animated short and live-‐action

feature film) purchased from overseas (Kersh 2). During the 1940’s two major

animation studios, which produced animated content for cinema, emerged in South

Africa: Killarney Film Productions and Alpha Film Studios (Kersh 3). Killarney Film

Productions established itself as the leader in special effects animation, working on

optical illusions, titling sequences and transitions for feature films and newsreels

(Kersh 1). This tradition, it can be argued, laid the foundations of the current day South

African Special Effects industry headed by companies such as BlackGinger, who

specialise in visual effects and animation for the local and international commercial and

film industry (“About us.” BlackGinger.tv)

Alpha Film Studios, unlike Killarney Film Productions, focussed on traditional

celluloid animation, producing mostly animated commercials. This choice of technique

may be attributed to the influence the British animator, Dennis Purchase, who relocated

to South Africa in 1947 to start production on animated commercials known as

‘drawtoons’. These commercials were a combination of American animation pioneer,

Stuart Blackton’s ‘lightning sketch’ and stop frame animation. They consisted of a hand

drawing an image at a fast pace which was created by lightly drawing the outlines of an

image and then inking sections at intervals in front of a camera (Kersh 2).

Another key player in the South African commercial animation industry was

7

Dave McKay. McKay worked as a camera man for Alpha Studios during the late 1950’s,

before starting his own company, Dave McKay Productions, with Dennis Purchase as the

animation director. Dave McKay Productions was granted the sole right to supply Ster

Films’ (South Africa’s major cinema chain at the time) advertising company, Adfilms,

with animated commercials during the late 1960’s and 1970’s. These commercials were

termed ‘Animads’ and described in The Clarion News’ Press, Advertising and Film Review

of April 1970, as relatively inexpensive and thus were accessible to the majority of

South African businesses. The Clarion News’ Press, Advertising and Film Review also

stated that these commercials, being “short animated colour films with sound track”

(“Ster Adfilms get all Animated”) of no longer than thirty seconds, adopted the same

techniques as were being used for television commercials abroad and thus prepared

Dave McKay Productions for the introduction of television in 1976 (“Ster Adfilms get all

Animated” 1).

South African animation was greatly influenced by American and European

models of production as their primary knowledge was gained from visiting animators

and thus were generally keeping pace with animation developments globally. Because

South African animation had already established a niche for itself in the commercial

market during the cinematic era, the transition from animation in cinema to television

context went smoothly.

South African animators that had been involved in animation production for

cinema such as Denis Purchase, Gerrard Smith and Butch Stoltz joined producer

Gretchen Wilsenach to form Annie-‐Mation Studios in 1978, which worked closely with

the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) to supply the South African public

broadcaster with animated programs and television commercials (Kersh 3). Before

8

closing down in 1981, Dave McKay Productions also created content for television

which included commercials and the animated series “Tale From The Valley of

Thousand Hills” which aired at the beginning of 1977 (“Eerste tekenverhaal op Compass

te sien”).

1.2 Key concepts

The foregoing account of the history of the animated television commercial in

the United States of America, Britain and South Africa revealed that animation was the

medium of choice for propaganda films and cinema and television advertising. This

establishes that there has been a mutual attraction between the mediums of animation

and advertising, dating as far back as the early cinema era of the late 1910’s. The

remainder of this chapter will provide a theoretically informed introduction to

advertising as a mode of practise and related issues. This introduction should be

considered in conjunction with the foregoing account of animated commercials history

to provide an overview of and insight into the relationship between commercial

animation and advertising.

The remainder of this chapter will not only look at advertising as a mode of

practice but also at semiotics and its relation to advertising, postmodernism and the

visual and its stylistic similarities to advertising, as well as the strategies of

representation used by advertisers to further strengthen the reader’s knowledge about

the workings of advertising. The knowledge gained from this chapter in regards to

animation in an advertising context will serve as a contextual and theoretical

9

framework essential for the analysis of Vodacom’s Mo the Meerkat campaign. This

research will argue that the campaign can be considered an example of the above

mentioned relationship between commercial animation and advertising.

1.2.1 Advertising as a Mode of Practise

In their book Persuasive Signs: the Semiotics of Advertising, Beasley and Danesi

describe advertising as a form of public announcement made with the intention to

direct consumers’ attention to a certain product or service to increase the likelihood

that this product or service will be purchased (Beasley & Danesi 1). This is a very

simplistic definition of the phenomenon, yet I find it appropriate here, as it is effective.

They elaborate on this matter, noting that contemporary advertising makes use of a

combination of art and science to successfully market a product (Beasley & Danesi 2).

‘Art’ in the sense that advertisers employ certain “aesthetic techniques” (Beasley &

Danesi 2), such as, for example, visual imagery to influence how consumers perceive a

product or service. ‘Science’ is used, not necessarily in literal terms, but to denote a

more fact-‐based approach, where tools of psychology and market research are used to

establish how consumers will respond to the product and how advertisers can influence

consumer behaviour to their benefit (Beasley & Danesi 2).

This relationship between the ‘art’ and ‘science’ is reflected in the strategic and

creative divisions within contemporary advertising agencies. The ‘strategic division’

within an advertising agency is responsible for determining the target market of a

product or service as well as defining the brand ‘ideology’ which the advertisement to

be created must sustain. The ‘creative division’ works with these prerequisites to come

up with an advertisement, which is, not only a vehicle for this ideology, but is also

entertaining enough for consumers to take notice of it. Finding the balance between

10

strategy and creativity is important, because even if the advertisement is entertaining

enough to be popular amongst consumers, if it does not convey the correct message it

can possibly do the brand a disservice (and consequently influence sales negatively).

These “aesthetic techniques” (Beasly and Danesi 2) include the juxtaposition of

specific signs to create an ‘image’ for the product. The word ‘image’ here refers not

exclusively to a visual representation, but rather to the presence of the product or

service as a whole, also known as brand identity. This may include any possible

interface the product or service shares with consumers: brand name, logo, package

design and print, radio or television commercial, also known as branding. The purpose

of branding is, not only, to give the product or service a personality (Beasley & Danesi

20), but also form a framework with which advertisers can make the product or service

mean something to consumers.

However, the ultimate goal of such branding is to place this product or service in

the consumer’s consciousness; to ensure that consumers recognize the product in a

retail environment and purchase it (Beasley & Danesi 17). Yet, as Heidi Brauer notes in

her article “People love brands that don’t let them down” published in the 2006 Sunday

Times’ Business Times Top Brands Survey, sales are mainly reliant on a brand loyalty

which combines two factors. The first she calls “behavioral commitment” (2), in other

words, whether consumers are planning to use the product or service more than once,

and keep using it, as well as “attitudinal commitment” (2), or whether consumers feel

that the brand is important to them. Therefore it is not only important for branding to

elicit spontaneous awareness or recognition of the product or service, but also feelings

of trust, confidence and commitment towards the product (Brauer 2-‐3).

Market research is what Beasley and Danesi call the “scientific enterprise” (103)

11

that attempts to determine the likely users of a product or service. This is done by

dividing possible consumers into “market segments” (3) based on their age, sex, income,

occupation and other factors (Beasley and Danesi 132) and analysing them

psychologically to predict their possible reactions to the product or service and to find

ways in which consumer behaviour can be influenced to benefit sales. The ‘segment’ of

possible consumers deemed most susceptible to purchase the product or service are

called the ‘target audience’ (Beasley and Danesi 132). Defining the target audience is an

important tool for advertisers as it is generally found that, even though branding may

have some unconscious effect on consumers, a brand will only be accepted by

consumers if it suits their already pre-‐conceived preferences (Beasly and Danesi 157).

Thus, it is usually more profitable for advertisers to optimise their branding for a

certain target audience, than to attempt to appeal to all consumers across the market

segments equally. This is because the reception of the visual differs amongst individuals

and groups of people based on their cultural predispositions and personal experiences.

People from different cultures and walks of life also have different preconceived values,

which the advertisement needs to uphold to be successful.

1.2.2 Advertising and Semiotics

Semiotic analysis in an advertising context serves as an important tool used to

decode the underlying meaning this brand ‘image’, mentioned above, presents. In her

book, Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising, Judith Williamson

describes advertising as being responsible, not only, for promoting the inherent

qualities and attributes of products they are attempting to sell, but also for making

these products have meaning to consumers to achieve their goal of selling the product

(Williamson 12).

12

In advertising, the brand identity (in other words the brand name, logo, package

design, commercials and any other display) of a certain product or service functions on

two levels: an “overt level” (Williamson 19), in other words, the imagery and scenarios

advertisements are presented to consumers at face value, and on a “latent level”

(Williamson 19) in other words, what these advertisements are actually suggesting. The

function of the “overt level”, although it may seem to simply be promoting the qualities

and attributes of product, is to generate less obvious meanings, namely the ‘latent

meanings’. These ‘latent’ meanings cannot be deduced by simply reading the

advertisement, and are usually connotative, determined to a large extent on the

consumers’ subconscious (Williamson 19).

The goal of applying semiotic analysis in an advertising context is to unmask this

‘latent’ meaning in order to reveal the true functioning of an advertisement. This multi-‐

levelled framework of creating meaning is what advertising semioticians refer to as a

signification system, which might be elucidated by a brief overview of semiotics.

Present-‐day semiotics was founded on the writings of the French linguist

Ferdinand de Saussure and American logician Charles Pierce, in the 19th to early 20th

century. The term ‘semiotics’ is derived from the Greek word for sign, ‘semeion’, and

was first used in a medical context (Beasley & Danesi 21). A sign, according to Saussure,

is something which itself is absorbed by the senses (visually or audibly) but also brings

to mind something else in form of a “mental representation” (35). A sign is something

which has a particular meaning to a person or group of people. However, a sign

represents neither the physical entity it was created to represent mentally, nor the

meaning which this physical entity generates. It is a combination of the two. The

physical entity, in other words, the letters or sounds that make up a word, visual

13

symbols or gestures is known as the “signifier” (Beasly & Danesi 23). The mental or

conceptual aspect, in other words those aspects including the object, idea, event, or

belief the physical dimension was created to stand for is known as the “signified”

(Williamson 17). The meanings that are generated through the association of the

signifier with the signified are what Saussure referred to as the “signification system”

(Beasly & Danesi 23).

What also needs to be noted at this point is that the connection between the

signifier and signified is not sequential and is seldom generated by a line of argument or

narrative presented within the advertisement. The advertisement relies on the

consumer to make this link, based on their own interpretation of the subject at hand

(Williamson 19). Such interpretation is also known as a “connotation”. Connotations,

more often than not, are influenced by our personal experiences and cultural biases and

Beasley and Danesi note that “from a psychological standpoint, the human mind seems

predisposed to link meanings together in some way that has its own culture-‐specific

logic” (103). Connotations are thus affected by our cultural and personal predisposition.

This non-‐sequential connection between the signifier and signified, as well as the

connotations generated by this connection, also plays a significant role in the concept of

the ‘spectacle’.

1.2.3 Advertising and the Spectacle

This non-‐sequential connection between the signifier and signified, as well as the

connotations generated by this connection, also plays a significant role in the concept of

the ‘spectacle’. In his article “Don’t give me what I ask for, give me what I need,”

published in the South African Visual Culture anthology, Michal Herbst discusses the role

signification plays in advertising. According to Herbst, advertisers manipulate the (non-‐

14

sequential) logic that connects the signifier, signified and thus the connotations which

are generated, by removing signs from their original or common context, combining

them with other signs and arranging them in such a way as to “attract, intrigue, impress

and humor” (18) viewers.

Andrew Darley identifies similar issues to these discussed by Herbst in his book

Visual Digital Culture. Surface Play and Spectacle in New Media Genres. Darley highlights

the “new level of preoccupation with signifiers at the expense of the signification” (83)

in contemporary advertising. This means that advertisers are no longer interested in

the original meaning of signs or symbols but instead, use these signs purely due to their

visual nature and effect it might have on the audience. Signs are combined and re-‐

arranged to make new meaning, whereby the original meaning is lost (Darley 89).

Darley reflects on this in the following quote that defines advertising as: “the cultural

space where in, for the most part, non-‐functional meanings and connotations. . . are

generated and arbitrarily attached” (89).

This is done to create, what Darley calls, a “spectacle” (81). A “spectacle”, in this

case, being something exciting and entertaining, something that will attract audience’s

attention to the advertisement. This may take the form of special effects, unusual

animated characters or eye-‐catching visuals. He goes on to suggest that the tendency of

contemporary advertisers to create spectacles is largely due to “the enabling powers of

digital technology” (81), in other words, largely the result of certain means now

available (81).

1.2.4 Postmodernism and the Visual

The foregoing analysis of the sign in an advertising context revealed that

15

advertisers manipulate the relationship between the different elements within a sign

(the signifier and the signified), as well as the connotations this relationship generates.

The sign is used purely due to its visual nature to create entertaining scenarios, also

known as ‘spectacles’. This manipulation creates a situation where the visual should not

be accepted at face value but needs to be met with some measure of playful mistrust.

This mistrust of the visual is not a phenomenon associated exclusively with the effects

of advertising, but is also prevalent within the ‘visual crisis’ of postmodernism.

Postmodernism is by no means an easily definable term, possibly because the

concept to which it refers is so elusive and multi-‐faceted and thus can have no single,

concrete, meaning. I will, for the purpose of this section, refer to Nicholas Mirzoeff’s

definition coined in his anthology The Visual Culture Reader, as I feel it is most relevant

to my concerns in this study. Mirzoeff defines postmodernism as the crisis caused by

modernism and modern culture (thus defining the prefix ‘post’, in postmodernism, as

more than simply happening after the period of modernity) relating to its “strategy of

visualizing” (4), in other words its modes of representation (Mirzoeff 4).

This crisis has to do with the fact that “seeing is no longer believing” (4) as stated

so simply, but effectively, by Mirzoeff. This is because our understanding of the visual

world, as it is represented to us by advertisers, is not a true reflection. In other words,

the visual information we are presented with on a daily basis, can no longer

automatically be considered a true or accurate reflection of reality. This is partially due

to the fact that as soon as one form of representation is no longer considered favourable

or ‘accurate’, the next form of representation appears without the previous

disappearing. This can be seen, according to the German philosopher Martin Heidegger,

in the shift from painting used as the most accurate reflection of the world, to

16

photography and later film, as discussed in his book The Age of the World Picture

(Heidegger 7). This phenomenon can also be attributed to a large extent to the practise

of advertising. Advertisers re-‐appropriate specific images to create a montage of images

which might mean something to the viewer and so motivate them to buy the product or

service. These scenarios might be based in reality but are always manipulated in some

way, which makes it difficult for consumers to distinguish between the real and the

constructed.

Further, the idea of reproduction is also of concern to this crisis of

representation. This issue was most famously debated from a modernist perspective by

the German intellectual Walter Benjamin in his work The Work of Art in the Age of

Mechanical Reproduction. Benjamin preceded the postmodernist movement and was

referring to the crisis of mechanical reproduction in connection with the outburst of

propaganda and state media before World War Two, that was made possible by the

modern technologies of lithography, photography and cinema at the time. Despite the

fact that Benjamin was not referring to the crisis of mechanical reproduction in a

contemporary context, his insights are still of relevance to the crisis of the visual within

postmodernism, as will be demonstrated below.

According to Benjamin, reproduction has always been possible (paintings, for

example, are reproducible by hand). However, the mechanical age, or the invention of

imaging technology such as lithography, photography and cinema, (which were the

most advanced technologies at the time Benjamin was writing), raise this phenomenon

to another, mechanical, level, as the relative ease with which this technology operates

make manipulations of reproductions near limitless (Benjamin 217). Regardless of how

accurate such reproduction may be, Benjamin notes that the artwork’s authenticity or

17

‘aura’ is sacrificed through reproduction. Benjamin defines ‘aura’ as an artwork’s

presence in time and space, its unique existence (Benjamin 218).

This lack of ‘aura’ as defined by Benjamin, is still problematic within a

postmodernist context, due to the fact that imaging technologies have become even

more sophisticated since the time Benjamin was writing. The personal computer and

digital technologies, as well as digital printing and scanning technologies have enabled,

not only, the convenience of reproduction but also ease with which the visual can be

manipulated. This manipulation of the visual is especially prevalent in advertising

practise. Therefore, Benjamin’s insights applied to a postmodernist context reveal that

the advertising image is completely devoid of a ‘unique existence’ and ‘aura’.

This lack of aura also means, according to Benjamin, that an artwork is no longer

functional in the traditional sense, as an important participant in culture and ritual

(Benjamin 220). Instead, an artwork finds value based on entirely different criteria: its

“exhibition value” (220). ‘Exhibition value’ is defined as the value an artwork generates,

not simply based on its existence as is true in a cultural environment, but rather on its

ability to be exhibited and viewed (Benjamin 221).

Benjamin also noted, that this shift in value system means that the function of an

artwork has changed from an entity produced solely for the sake of artistic expression,

to a creation which holds viewership as its foremost priority and artistic expression

may simply be a coincidence (Benjamin 222). According to Benjamin, the function of art

solely as an object to be viewed highlights another problem in contemporary society:

the role of the critic. Traditionally, the role of an art critic was reserved for those

individuals, whom possessed the education and insight to make informed and

constructive value judgements about artwork. However, due to enabling technology of

18

mechanical reproduction, artworks such as photography and film, are available to a

mass audience, which means that the general public takes over the role of the critic

(Benjamin 222). Benjamin finds this to be problematic as the public is “absent-‐minded”

(222) and remain oblivious to the subtle messages and agendas which artworks might

have.

The idea of the general public as absent-‐minded critics, as highlighted by

Benjamin, becomes even more problematic in an advertising context, where it is

essential for consumers to fully comprehend the strategies behind visual information to

avoid being manipulated by advertisers. Further, Benjamin found the mediums of

photography and film to be exemplars of the new function of art as political tools. This is

an interesting observation, considering that these mediums are currently being used for

advertising production (print advertisements which rely heavily on the combination of

images and text, as well as filmed television commercials). Additionally, the use of

photography and film in an advertising context, or the ‘advertising artwork’ if it can be

called so, embodies the idea of an artwork which primary function is to be viewed (to

create awareness for the brand being advertised) and that the content being shown and

its meaning is the second priority. This echoes what Benjamin termed the ‘exhibition

value’ of a work of art.

In his book, The Condition of Postmodernity, David Harvey explores

postmodernism as originating from a cultural shift in sensibility in the modernist

architectural discourse of the early 1970’s. Harvey notes that at this time a rupture

occurred that rejected the modernist idea that urban design should be planned on a

large scale, be functional, efficient and shaped to fulfil social purposes. Instead, a

sensibility arose that favoured the urban landscape as a palimpsest of past forms,

19

designed according to aesthetic aims and principles, something which showed

individualism, rather than a design built to serve an all encompassing social need

(Harvey 66).

This sentiment revealed a shift in contemporary culture’s practise of thinking,

which most noticeably rejected the modernist aspiration to represent the world as a

unified whole (Harvey 5). This meant the disillusionment of a singular reality or

perception of the world as having one unified voice, resulting in the promotion of

previously marginalised people and opinions (also known as ‘the other’) (Harvey 42).

This rejection of authority or known wisdom, is termed ‘the grand-‐narrative’ by French

philosopher Jean-‐François Lyotard, in his text The Postmodern Condition: A Report on

Knowledge. Lyotard urged society to reject authority and wisdom received from

previous generations as well as to be critical of assumed cultural and political norms

(Sim 3).

This alternative practise of thinking started in the architectural discourse of the

early 1970’s and soon spread to other realms such as art, literature, film, social theory,

psychology and philosophy (Harvey 98). Harvey notes that within the arts,

postmodernism meant that instead of producing fictional subject matter (as was

common with modernist artists such as Manet) postmodernist artists create their

subjects by reproducing, repeating and re-‐contextualising already existing images (55).

This practise raises similar concerns to those discussed in connection with Benjamin in

his discussion of the artwork in the age of mechanical reproduction. Due to the

reproduced nature of the artwork used in this pastiche, the images used have, not only,

lost their aura, but are being used as a new form of cultural artefact. They are a

reference to something else, and their value is not based on their existence, but in the

20

relation to other works.

Another important aspect Harvey raises in his discussion of postmodernism is

the alternate way of thinking in regard to language and communication (Harvey 49).

Harvey explores the deconstructivist idea of reading and thinking about the written

form. According to deconstructivist philosophy, a text and words can never exist in

isolation, but always draws reference from other words and texts to make meaning.

This interrelation means that the meaning made in a text is based on a variety of

personal references made by the reader (each person draws different connotations

from words and scenarios) and thus can never be controlled by the author and is

therefore also not the exclusive property of the author (Harvey 49). This leads to the

cultural producer having less authority as in previous times, as his word is no longer

considered the ultimate truth. According to Harvey, this phenomenon empowers the

voice of the critic above that of the author in defining cultural values. This shifts the

debate of cultural values into the public arena as the public is considered the audience

of the critic (Harvey 51).

This raises similar concerns to those raised by Benjamin in his discussion of the

artwork in the age of mechanical production and again shows the trend towards the

general public as critic of, not only, the artwork and the visual, but in this case also the

written form. This is problematic because the interpretations made by the public are

often ‘unstable’, as Harvey terms it, as they are uncritical and oblivious of the full

meanings and nuances presented in these works. This oblivion of the general public to

the written and the visual message presents an important opportunity for advertisers

as they often rely on manipulation visuals and words or text. Thus, it is important for

the general public to be aware of the full meanings encoded in the visual stimuli in their

21

daily life, as highlighted by the concerns of visual culture studies, but also the written

text.

Thus, it may be possible that the postmodernist practise of thinking which

emerged in 1970’s architectural design and rapidly spread to all realms of life, may have

provided the opportunity for advertising to blossom. Due to the general mistrust of

ultimate truths and authoritarian opinions on subjects such as art and literature (the

visual and the written), a society was created in which everyone was valued as a

cultural critic. As Benjamin and Harvey pointed out, this may have resulted in a society

where most people are absent minded, oblivious and uncritical of the visual and written

around them (Benjamin 220; Harvey 49).

This condition (of postmodernity, perhaps) presents the ideal environment for

the advertiser, as the consumer is more likely to accept advertisements at face value,

rather than questioning their validity and purpose. In light of this, advertising may

simply be the symptom of what Mirzoeff called the ‘crisis of the visual’ which emerged

during postmodernism. Consequently, through its cynical manipulation of the

essentially arbitrary relation between signifier and signified, advertising may well be

contributing to this visual crisis and be one of the major factors why this crisis still

exists.

The following chapter will serve as documentation of a practical example of such

advertising, which has been the concern of this historically and theoretically informed

chapter. The following chapter will be important in establishing the relevance and

usefulness of the advertising related concepts that have been discussed in this chapter,

in a contemporary, practical advertising context.

22

Chapter Two: An Animated South African Advertising

Campaign: A Case Study

The previous chapter served as a contextual and theoretical framework around

the phenomenon of animation in an advertising context. Knowledge gained from

discussions of advertising as a mode of practise, semiotics in advertising, the spectacle

as well as the visual crisis manifest in advertising will be used to analyse the campaign

and character at hand, deeming them the product of the relationship between

commercial animation and advertising and thereby attempt to reach an understanding

of why an animated character was chosen for this campaign.

2.1 Background of the Campaign

The first section of this chapter will give a brief history of the inception of the

mobile telecommunications industry in South Africa, focusing on the roles played by

two of the three mobile telecommunications providers, Vodacom and MTN. An

overview of Vodacom’s engagement with advertising, as well as a brief history of their

advertising partners, Draftfcb, will also be given, which will include Draftfcb’s

engagement with the medium of animation. This will provide a historical and situational

context for the campaign in question: Vodacom’s Mo the Meerkat campaign, which will

be documented in the remainder of the chapter.

23

2.1.1 History of the South African Mobile Telecommunication Industry

According to Vusi Silonda, the driving force behind the introduction of mobile

telecommunication providers in South Africa was the acknowledgement by the state in

1993 that the parastatal fixed line provider, Telkom, which serviced only ten percent of

the population, was no longer meeting the needs of the country’s economy (Silonda 57).

As the country’s era of white minority rule drew to an end, providing all South Africans

with access to telecommunications was now considered a priority and seen as vital in

stimulating the country’s economy (Interactive Africa 13). The cellular

telecommunications infrastructure was envisioned, not only for the affluent user who

could afford a cellular telephone (which at the time cost between R1000 and R4000),

but also as a means of providing poorly serviced areas with a basic telephone

infrastructure, which would allow previously disadvantaged communities to make calls

at subsidised costs from local pay phones. Both providers made it a priority to aid

development in poorer, previously neglected parts of the country, not only by

expanding infrastructure, but also by granting previously disadvantaged communities

access to affordable telecommunications by subsidising these payphones from their

general operating profit (Interactive Africa 8 & 11).

In 1993, Two licences were awarded (at a cost of R100 million each), one to the

Vodacom Group and the other to the Mobile Telephone Network (MTN) Group. The

Vodacom Group is a joint venture between Telkom (50% ownership), the world’s

leading mobile communications group, Vodafone (35% ownership), and the investment

holding company, Ven Fin (15% ownership). Vodacom was awarded the first license in

June 1993, nine months before the MTN Group were awarded their license

(Koenderman 2). The swift allocation of Vodacom’s license was speculated to be due to

24

Telkom’s ties with the South African government, as Vodacom, unlike MTN did not have

to take part in the tender process (“Reputations on the line as phone switch-‐on looms”).

Despite this, both providers commenced service on the 1st of June 1994, and unlike any

other country in the world, the cellular system begun operations with 10 000 pre-‐

registered subscribers across both networks on the first day (which had signed up prior

to this date) (Silonda 67-‐8).

However, despite both operators commencing their service at the same time,

Vodacom, having been granted a license prior to MTN, had more opportunity to prepare

by working on infrastructure, choosing service providers and advertising, amongst

other things. This resulted in what Silonda terms a ‘first-‐mover advantage’, which

explains Vodacom’s significantly higher market share in the South African market

(Silonda 70). From inception to present, Vodacom has had a market share of between

54 and 61%, while MTN’s has been between 32 and 41 percent, with the third cellular

operator, Cell C, introduced in 2001, making up the remainder (Koutras 26 & 55).

According to Eleni Koutras, this advantage can also be attributed to the influence of the

Vodacom Group’s shareholders, Telkom and Vodafone, which gave them access to

technology and large amounts of capital to invest during the early years (27). Added to

this was the cost and inconvenience implicated in switching between providers, as it

was impossible for subscribers to retain their numbers when switching operators, thus

making subscribers reluctant to move away from the operator they had chosen at first

(Silonda 70).

The demand for cellular telephones was vastly underestimated by the

government and cellular providers alike. An estimated 150 000 to 200 000 subscribers

per operator in the first five years, turned out to be 2 000 000 subscribers for Vodacom

25

in 1999. MTN ended 1999 with 290 000 subscribers, which was substantially less than

Vodacom’s subscribers but nevertheless 90 000 subscribers more than they expected

(Sergeant 2; Silonda 65, 76, 86). This phenomenal demand showed, in South African

advertising expert, Tony Koenderman’s opinion, the insatiable desire of the South

African population to communicate and thereby also the fundamental need for mobile

telecommunication in the country (Koenderman 3). This demand, together with

Vodacom’s competitive advantage due to their head start, places their business success

as well as their popularity amongst consumers in a different light. Koenderman

comments on Vodacom’s success as follows:

“In a brand new market, with a brand new product that people wanted, no

matter what, you couldn’t fail” (13).

In other words, what Tony Koenderman is suggesting is that, Vodacom’s success,

in his opinion, should not be attributed to their business strategy or marketing

ingenuity, but rather to the fact that they were in ‘the right place at the right time’

(Koenderman 12).

To date, the cellular telecommunications market in South Africa is reaching

saturation, resulting in only minor growth in subscribers annually (Koenderman 15;

Koutras 1). However, a new growth area has been recognized in cellular infrastructure

being used for mobile Internet access rather than voice calls. Internet access can be

achieved by connecting a wireless modem with a SIM card to your computer, or by

connecting directly to the Internet via your mobile handset. The WAP (Wireless

Application Protocol) feature on handsets has proven popular, especially amongst

business subscribers and younger users, and initiated the move towards ‘Smart Phones’.

A ‘Smart Phone’ is a handset of improved quality and sophistication, which allows users

26

to access the internet through browsing interfaces, to download data and applications

from the internet and to communicate with other users more easily and cheaply, via

‘chat’ and social networking applications. Smart phones were initially most prevalent

amongst business people who used them to send and receive e-‐mail and for other

features which enabled subscribers to conduct business ‘on the move’. However, due to

the handsets reduced price they are now also popular amongst younger subscribers

who use them for social networking and ‘chat’ applications.

Vodacom attempted to address this trend by introducing Vodafone Live! in 2005.

Vodafone Live!, which is a multimedia portal service, allows Vodacom customers access

to a range of content, news and information, such as music, pictures and ring tones, via

an user-‐friendly browsing interface on their mobile phones. This service incurs charges

only for the content that is downloaded, not for the time spent browsing (“Vodafone

live! -‐ Mobile Internet Advertising Platform”). The Vodafone Live! multimedia portal

concept is not unique to South Africa, but is, as the name suggests, the property of

Vodacom’s British parent company, Vodafone. The concept was initially developed by

the Japanese mobile operator J-‐Phone under the name J-Sky and had been operational in

Japan since 1999. However, J-Sky was renamed Vodafone live! in 2003 after J-Phone was

acquired by Vodafone (“J-‐Phone to rename J-‐Sky Web Service Vodafone live.”). The

portal is still in operation in South Africa at present, having gained 3 million unique

users monthly, and has gradually improved the quality of the content available, which

was relatively unsophisticated at first (“Vodacom Mobile Media” “Vodacom’s Vodafone

live! pass two million user-‐mark”).

2.1.2 Vodacom’s Engagement with Advertising

As established at the beginning of this chapter, Vodacom was in an privileged

27

position in regards to their initial market position as the more popular mobile

telecommunications provider. This popularity was partly due to the fact that they had

an advantage over MTN and also because they were selling a product that consumers

desired: mobile telephones and communication. In light of this, Koenderman is of the

opinion, that it was not necessary for Vodacom to advertise, especially not as vigorously

as they did or needed to do, as by-‐word-‐of-‐mouth would have been a sufficient

marketing tool (Koenderman 3, 7). This statement might be partially true, as Vodacom

did have a substantial advantage. However, it can be speculated that Vodacom’s

advertising was beneficial for retaining this advantage by increasing brand awareness

and thereby subscriber numbers.

Vodacom decided to position themselves as the cellular provider for everyone,

whether users could afford a cellular telephone or not, Vodacom was marketed as the

brand for them. This contrasted with MTN’s approach, whom had already made a name

for themselves as the brand for tech-‐savvy achievers and attempted to attract high-‐

value users (Britten 256; Koutras 44).

The Yebo Gogo campaign, the brainchild of Draftfcb’s executive creative director

at the time, Francois de Villiers (“SA Academy of Science & Arts honours Draftfcb's De

Villiers”), launched in October 1994 and depicted the escapades of a white

Johannesburg ‘Yuppie’2 (played by Michael de Pinna) and a black, fatherly, laid-‐back

man presumably from the rural areas of South Africa (played by Bankole Omotso)

(Britten 254).

In the first of these advertisements, the character played by Omotso sits at the

2 The Oxford English Dictionary defines the term yuppie as a young professional individual working in or around a city (“Yuppie”).

28

roadside, in a rural part of the country, surrounded by the toy wire windmills he has

made and is attempting to sell. A white three series BMW cabriolet pulls up, and the

yuppie and his girlfriend get out. The yuppie greets the black man by saying: “Yebo

Gogo”, which means “Yes Grandma” in Zulu, in an attempt to humour him by showing

knowledge of the other man’s native language. Yet, the yuppie is so arrogant and

oblivious that he is completely unaware that he has made a mistake (using ‘grandma’

instead of ‘grandpa’) and is in fact patronising and insulting the other man. Zulu culture

is a strictly patriarchal one, and thus referring to someone as grandma, a frail old

woman, is seen as highly insulting and richly humorous here (Britten 263). His

girlfriend admires the windmills, yet the yuppie is not willing to pay the R100 the other

man demands for one, calling it a ‘rip off’. The yuppie turns around and attempts to get

into his car, only to notice, to his embarrassment, that he has locked his keys in the car.

Gogo pulls out a cell phone and smiles. The camera cuts to the a sign with the number of

a locksmith and then to Gogo counting a wad of cash and finally to the white BMW

driving off with a backseat filled with toy windmills (“SA Academy of Science & Arts

honours Draftfcb's De Villiers.”) (Britten 254-‐257).

This advertisement made light of the recent change of power relations in the

country following the democratic elections and poked fun at the often awkward

reconciliation process between black and white South African’s. Although this

advertisement was contentious at first, it generally received a positive response from

consumers, where it easily could have been seen as offensive. Koenderman attributes

the positive reception it received largely due to the fact that the black character was

portrayed as the humble and witty individual, while the white character was portrayed

as arrogant, shallow and disrespectful (Koenderman 2). This portrayal reflected the

29

general sentiment in the country at the time that black individuals were now of a newly

elevated status and were no longer seen as the underdogs.

However, more importantly, this advertisement showed Draftfcb’s ability to

evaluate public sentiment and develop an advertisement that, not only, captured the

zeitgeist, but also was humorous and entertaining. Vodacom’s advertising has largely

retained this ability, and even though their more current advertisements (such as the

Mo the Meerkat campaign) are perhaps not as comedic and commentators of the time,

but they are entertaining, and more importantly, always ring true with consumers. This

ability to judge exactly what consumers want and design advertisements aimed at a

mass audience may account for Vodacom’s popularity. Vodacom has been voted the

‘Favourite Telecoms Provider’ and ‘Favourite Advertiser’ and featured in the top ten in

the ‘Overall Favourite Brand’ categories in the Sunday Times Business Times’ Top

Brands Award for numerous years. The same popularity is found amongst the youth

market, with Vodacom being voted the ‘Coolest Telecoms Provider’ and featured in the

top ten in the ‘Coolest Top Company’ and ‘Coolest Brand’ categories of the Sunday

Times’ Generation Next Youth Brand Survey (“Top Brands Survey” 2005-‐2007; “Sunday

Times-‐ Generation Next Youth Brand Survey” 2005-‐2007).

Vodacom’s approach of being the “biggest and the best”, in other words the most

popular, contrasted with MTN’s strategy of attracting higher-‐end business customers

(customers that spend more) by offering innovative and competitive products (Koutras

44). MTN dominated the higher-‐end prepaid (a payment plan introduced in 1998 which

allowed users to load credit onto their accounts in advance rather than making calls on

credit) and contract section of the market, while Vodacom was most popular amongst

low-‐income users. MTN also prided themselves in providing superior customer service

30

and satisfaction (Silonda 73).

Thus, although Vodacom may have been in a very fortunate market position and

did not really have to advertise, their marketing certainly proved valuable for brand

awareness and popularity. Further, Vodacom made substantial profits and could afford

to advertise vigorously and did so on a fairly casual basis, relying on instinct rather than

strategy (Koenderman 12; Doherty 2).

MTN, on the other hand, made a conscious effort to strategize their position in

the market and relied on strategic advertising in an attempt to increase their

subscribers and thereby increase their market share. However, according to

Koenderman, this was largely unsuccessful, possibly due to the fact that MTN

repeatedly changed their leadership, strategy and advertising agency (Koenderman 13).

This rivalry between Vodacom and MTN meant that these companies have relied

on advertising as an attempt to portray themselves as the ‘better’ cellular operator.

combined with the extremely lucrative nature of the cellular telecommunications

industry in South Africa, this meant that very large advertising budgets were available

to both companies. In recent years, both companies have been amongst the top six

advertising spenders in South Africa annually (as defined in the ‘The Big Spenders”

table in Tony Koenderman’s Adreview publication), spending in excess of R440 million3.

This generally means that advertising agencies which are fortunate enough to have

cellular operator’s business do well financially (Koenderman 9).

Vodacom’s Mo the Meerkat campaign was the first major campaign launched

after the Yebo Gogo campaign and can be seen as an example of Vodacom’s casual, mass-‐

3 Interestingly, MTN is above Vodacom in this list, even though they generally see fewer results in terms of market share (Koenderman 9).

31

appeal based advertising style. Further, it is also an example of a campaign that enjoyed

a massive budget and was thus able to penetrate the majority of the country and is

recognizable to a large part of the population. From an animation perspective, this mass

appeal and penetration can only be beneficial to the animation industry in South Africa,

as any exposure the medium gets helps promote and develop it (Treves & Hofmeyr 13).

2.1.3 Draftfcb

The previous section highlighted the advertising success Vodacom has generally

enjoyed thus far, as well as the ability of their advertising to capture the public

sentiment at the time. This ability can to a large extent be attributed to their advertising

partners, Draftfcb. This section of the chapter will give a brief history of Draftfcb, before

moving on to an overview of their engagement with the medium of animation in the

next sub-‐section.

Draftfcb Johannesburg, which was responsible for the campaign in question, has

been Vodacom SA’s advertising partner for the past 16 years. The relationship began

when the mobile telephone company launched their first advertising campaign in

October 1994 (“SA Academy of Science & Arts honours Draftfcb's De Villiers.”). This

long-‐standing relationship between the agency and Vodacom is in contrast to that of

their main rival, MTN, who have used several different advertising agencies and

followed several strategies over the years (Koenderman 13). However, the longevity of

the relationship with DraftFCB may possibly be attributed to the success Vodacom’s

advertising campaigns have generally enjoyed and thus presented no need for Vodacom

to make any changes.

Draftfcb Johannesburg is part of the global advertising network Draftfcb, which

32

has 167 offices in 94 countries, with headquarters in Chicago and New York, and is

ranked as one of the top 15 advertising agencies worldwide based on annual revenue

(Draftfcb.com) (“Draftfcb-‐ Agency Profile.”)(“Top 15 Consolidated Agency Networks”).

The company was formed by a merger between direct marketing firm, Draft Inc. and

creative agency FCB Worldwide (“Draftfcb-‐ Agency Profile.”). FCB Worldwide, formerly

known as Foote, Cone & Belding, or FCB, one of the world’s oldest advertising agencies,

was founded during the early 1900’s as an offshoot of Albert Lasker’s agency Lord and

Thomas in New York.

FCB South Africa was founded in 1926, when FCB Worldwide bought out an

advertising agency belonging to Lindsay Smithers in Johannesburg, and was thus

initially known as Lindsay Smithers FCB. Lindsay Smithers-‐FCB is the longest-‐

established advertising agency in South Africa and has been among the top three

agencies in the country for the past eight decades. In 2006, FCB South Africa was

renamed to Draftfcb after the international merger and now consists of three branches:

Draftfcb Johannesburg, Draftfcb Cape Town and Draftfcb Durban.

On the one hand, Draftfcb’s American history resulted in Draftfcb Johannesburg

being established as a full service agency, combining both direct marketing and creative

advertising in one agency. On the other hand, Draftfcb’s well established history as one

of the oldest players in the American advertising industry also means that Draftfcb

Johannesburg has a strong backing in terms of industry experience as well as financial

security. Added to this advantage is the fact that Lindsay Smithers FCB was one of the

first advertising agencies in South Africa, thereby providing Draftfcb Johannesburg with

substantial local experience. With both of these factors in mind, both FCB South Africa

and Draftfcb’s success in the country, more success can be expected. This success

33

includes having been responsible for three out of ten favourite advertisements in South

Africa. Millward Brown Adtrack 4 reports also found that Draftfcb had produced the

favourite advertisement of the past decade, as well as the favourite advertisement of the

last 25 years (Koenderman “Likeability Champions” 54) (“TV ads we’ve loved for 25

years”).

2.1.4 Draftfcb’s engagement with Animation

The previous section established the complex and long-‐standing history of what

is now known as Draftfcb Johannesburg. Due to the many mergers and acquisitions that

form part of this history, it becomes difficult to establish whether the agency has a

history of using animation. When asked on the subject in a personal interview, Brett

Morris, Draftfcb’s Group Chief Creative Officer, noted that the agency had definitely used

animation in their campaigns before, but that he was unsure to the extent of this. He

mentioned the three main applications of animation he could recall Draftfcb’s

involvement in over the years, namely: The Oros Man, Simba the Lion and Chappy the

Chipmunk. The Oros Man is an animated character used to promote the South African

product, Oros, an artificial orange squash produced by the Tiger Brands Group. Simba

the Lion is the brand icon of the South African potato chips company, Simba Chips.

Chappy the Chipmunk is the brand icon for Chappies, a South African chewing gum

brand.

This account of Draftfcb’s practice of using animation by their chief creative

4 Adtrack is research company Millward Brown’s advertising research system that

asks a panel of viewers to rate the liking and notability of all television commercials aired

annually to be discussed in the next section (Koenderman “Likeability Champions”)

34

officer is fairly vague and unsubstantial, but can be attributed to a number of factors:

- A visit to Draftfcb’s head offices in Johannesburg revealed that they do not

have an up to date and well organized archive. Completed commercials are

captured on DVD before being distributed to different broadcasters. In the

past one copy of the DVD was placed in storage. Recently, however, all DVD’s

in storage have been converted into a digital format and are now stored on a

computer system. This system can be searched for commercials by name or

keyword, but is not organized according to date, client or content. This means

that there is no clear overview of work that has been done over the years.

- Advertising agencies generally have a high staff turn over, which means that

individuals usually do not have a long history of working within the same

institution. For example, as was discovered during the documentation of this

campaign, there was more than one creative director working on the Mo the

Meerkat campaign (Grant Middleton and Gerhard Myburgh). The creative

director responsible for most of the campaign, Gerhard Myburgh, has since

immigrated and no longer works for Draftfcb. This means that there

generally also is no extensive personal recollection of work that has been

done.

- Industry surveys and publications such as Millward Brown Adtrack Report

and Tony Koenderman’s Adreview, focus on the success of commercials and

campaigns. This means that only the top ten or twenty commercials (by

consumer vote, creative awards or revenue achieved) are noted, recorded

and published. This means that there is no independent archive of South

African commercials available to the public. Therefore there is also no

35

extensive and reliable ‘public’ recollection of advertising produced.

Morris further noted that they never consider animation in isolation, but rather

as a ‘means to an end’, in other words, as a device that is occasionally suitable or ideal

for a certain brief given to them by clients (Morris 3). Thus, even though Draftfcb

Johannesburg have used two-‐dimensional animated icons as well as human icons (such

as Bankole Omotso and Michael de Pinna of the Yebo Gogo campaign) to create brand

identities, there is no institutional memory, in DraftFCB’s practice preceding Mo the

Meerkat, of a fully developed animated character. This means that, as far as can be

established, there has been no animated character with clearly distinguishable

personality traits which were developed within the commercials to benefit the brand

image. Having established this, the remainder of the chapter will serve as a

documentation of what can be considered Draftfcb’s first attempt at featuring a fully

developed animated character in their advertising.

2.2 Vodacom’s Mo the Meerkat Campaign, 2005-2007

2.2.1 Vodafone Live!

The animated character in question, Mo the Meerkat, was developed as part of a

commercial for the launch of a Vodacom product: Vodafone Live! (Doherty 5; Morris 4).

This product was developed by Vodafone for international markets initially and

introduced to the South African market towards the end of 2005. Vodafone Live! is a

youth product that targets Vodacom customers who use their mobile phones to access

the internet (Doherty 11; Morris 5). Thus, the target market for this product, (as defined

by the advertisers information platform on the Vodacom website) are mainly male,

36

employed persons between the ages of 19 and 34 years. Matric (a term used to describe

the final year of high school in South Africa) is listed as minimum education and a living

standard measure of between 7 and 10 (on a scale from 1 to 10) is identified as common

amongst these individuals.

As one of Vodacom’s shareholders, Vodafone was responsible for launching the

Vodafone live! concept in the South Africa. Vodacom handled the making of the first

commercial despite the fact that the commercial advertised a Vodafone product. The

character was envisioned by the creative team at Draftfcb Johannesburg as an

embodiment of entertainment coming to life on consumers’ mobile phones (via the

Vodafone live! portal) (Doherty 3) and symbolised that this portal brings entertainment

to you, regardless of your physical location (Morris 4). An animated character was

chosen as it enhanced the fact that this entertainment was not from the real world and

therefore also the reason the animated character finds itself in a live-‐action

environment (Morris 7). This character was initially going to be based on a dog, but a

meerkat was chosen instead to make it a more authentically South African character

(Andreotti 3; Morris 7).

The Vodafone Live! launch commercial featured Mo(Maurice) the Meerkat shown

stripping, by pulling off his skin, for a rather mortified female character in her living

room. This theme was chosen due to the fact that even adult content could be accessed

through the Vodafone Live! portal (Andreotti 2). The commercial was directed by Peter

Pohorsky at Plank Film Productions, who was in favour of the technique of motion

capture being used. This was because he had experience as a performance director, and

motion capture, unlike keyframe animation, allowed him to direct an actor’s

performance. This was important, in his opinion, as it would allow him to ascertain if

37

certain moves worked and if they were humorous or not (Pohorsky 1). At the time,

there was only one company in South Africa that had motion-‐capture facilities:

AnimMate! located in northern Johannesburg, who were then awarded the job for the

Vodafone live! launch commercial.

Thus, production went ahead and the data captured from the actor’s

performance by the motion capture facilities was translated on to a basic ‘wireframe’

model of Mo. Such ‘wireframe’ models usually consist only of the character’s basic shape

rendered in greyscale without any colour, texture or lighting information. This

‘wireframe’ model was then composited into the live action footage of the female figure

sitting in her living room and showed to Vodacom for approval. Vodacom was satisfied

with the unfinished version they had seen and gave permission for the commercial to be

finished (Pohorsky 1).

An anonymous source involved in the technical aspect of the animation

production indicated that Mo initially was supposed to have computer generated fur

which would allow for him to pull something off while stripping. This fur would be

created by an application that simulated real hair and would allow for the computer

generated hair to be styled (to resemble the fur of real animals) and would also move

realistically. However, Pohorsky was unhappy with the character’s appearance with the

fur as he felt that it detracted from the character’s mischievous look and made him look

creepy. AnimMate! assured him that the character would look better once he was

completely lit. However, when shown this version, Vodacom decided to cancel the job

because they felt that the finished character lacked the basic charm that the wireframe

model had shown (Pohorsky 1).

Instead, AnimMate! managed to convince Vodacom to give them a chance to

38

remodel the character and they were given three days to remove the fur and make Mo

look more charming and ‘cartoon-‐like’ (Pohorsky 1). Regardless of this production

crisis, when finally aired, the Vodafone Live! launch commercial took the public by

storm and was exceptionally popular (Andreotti 4). Andreotti noted that, in her opinion,

the character that had been created was not ideal, as the majority of the viewers did not

realise it was a meerkat (Andreotti 4). This recognition was considered important as the

creative team had deliberately chosen a character based on a meerkat (rather than a

dog as they had initially planned) due to the fact that it was an authentically South

African character. However, Andreotti’s slight dissatisfaction with the character might

be due to the production difficulties that were experienced.

2.2.2 Vodacom

Due to the popularity of this Vodafone Live! launch commercial, Mo the Meerkat

then evolved into a character used for Vodacom branding purposes and starred in five

additional commercials between November 2005 and November 2007 (Morris 4).

Because Vodafone at the time only had a minority (35 percent) share in Vodacom,

Vodacom management was able to annex the Mo the Meerkat character and decided that

he would be used to advertise the Vodacom brand rather than the Vodafone live! portal.

This shift was not welcomed by advertising professionals due to strategic

concerns. Mo’s function, as Vodacom property was about Vodacom’s relationship with

their customers, and how Vodacom, as a telecoms provider, gives their customers more

opportunity to connect with others and be entertained (Morris 4). This is echoed by

Dulile Sowaga in his article “Maurice the Meerkat steals show, is likely to be around for

some time” for City Press newspaper:

39

“For the brand, it communicates that Vodacom is there every moment, not only

with cellphones but making users enjoy unlimited entertainment” (4)

However, from a strategic perspective this analogy for the brand was not ideal,

as Mo the Meerkat had been conceived through a strategy for Vodafone Live!, a specific

product, rather than a brand as a whole (Doherty 5). One of the implications of this was

that the target market for the subsequent commercials was no longer defined by age,

gender and race. Vodacom, similar to Coca Cola, has an extremely large and diverse

customer base: 27 million customers from all races, gender and from any Living

Standard measure (Doherty 4; Morris 4). This means that Vodacom’s advertising needs

to appeal to a mass audience rather than a specific group of people as had been defined

the target market for the Vodafone Live! portal. Vodacom’s motivations for retaining

this character, however, may have had to do with the consumer popularity the

character had already shown, as well as their tendency to favour characters with

entertaining narrative (as seen in the Yebo Gogo campaign) in their advertisements.

The next commercial which aired in November 2005, was a collaboration

between director Jeremy Goodall from Feel Good Films based in Johannesburg and

AnimMate!. Peter Pohorsky was not interested in taking the project any further, as he

felt that he would not be able to redesign the character to what he had originally

envisioned as Mo was already in the public domain. He was also unhappy with the

animation production aspect of the campaign because he felt that he was not able to

supervise every aspect of the production and thus make timely changes or

improvements to the outcome if needed (Pohorsky 1).

The next commercial was themed around the up and coming summer holidays in

South Africa and proved to be even more popular, scoring 9,2 out of 10 on the Millward

40

Brown Adtrack System, against an average score of 6,2 (Sowaga 4).

Hereafter the campaign underwent a change. Draftfcb awarded the film contract

for the next three commercials to CAB films in Cape Town. Rachel Andreotti, head of

broadcasting at Draftfcb at the time of the campaign could not recall whether this had to

do with unavailability of Jeremy Goodall or personal preference of the creative director

at the time (Andreotti 10). Director, Bruce Paynter at CAB Films was critical of the use

of motion capture in the previous commercials, and felt that, while it was very accurate,

did not portray any of the “comedic elasticity” (2) that the character lacked (Payner 2).

In other words, what Paynter was suggesting, was that while Mo’s movements were

realistic and fluid, he could benefit from some comedy and personification, instead of

simply being “a man in a meerkat suit” (Hofmeyr & Treves 5; Paynter 2).

These issues are common concerns in the debate between motion capture and

traditional keyframe animation and dates as far back as the 1920’s when rotoscoping

was introduced. Rotoscoping is a mechanical animation technique, developed by

animation legend Max Fleisher and showcased in his Out of the Inkwell series, in which

animators trace movement, frame by frame, from live-‐action footage (Telotte 291).

While the technique of motion-‐capture allows for a sequence of moves to be

captured accurately from actors and translated to a computer based model,

performance animation places more emphasis on expressing the emotion and intention

contained in movement than on accuracy (Kerlow 2). This performance is especially

important in non-‐human characters, as viewers often find it uncanny to watch these

characters behaving exactly like humans. However, motion capture could be used as a

reference and combined with performance animation to create realistic, yet expressive

movement. The lack of performance or personality noted in the Mo the Meerkat

41

character by Paynter in the first two commercials, can be attributed to his limited range

of facial expressions and lack of bold, exaggerated and expressive movements or

gestures. Mo’s movements should not simply serve to execute certain actions, but also

reveal his feelings and disposition.

Based on these concerns, Paynter suggested that Black Ginger, a keyframe

animation and special effects company, in Cape Town be used for the animation for the

next commercial. Vodacom subsequently approved and awarded them the contract for

the remaining commercials, which meant that AnimMate! was no longer involved in the

campaign.

Both Bruce Paynter and Black Ginger had objections to the initial character

design of Mo the Meerkat (Hofmeyr & Treves 4; Paynter 4). This was partially due to the

fact that the character was initially only going to be used for one commercial, and not an

entire brand campaign, and thus no effort was made in creating a fully developed

character with an individualistic personality (Paynter 4).

The most noticeable result of this was that the audience failed to recognize Mo as

a meerkat initially, but instead likened him to a rodent (Andreotti 4). This lack of effort

also meant that the quality of animation and character design was less than satisfactory

at first and only reached its full potential in the fourth commercial, after Black Ginger

had familiarized themselves with the character and made gradual changes to his design

and raised the sophistication of Mo’s animated performance (Hofmeyr & Treves 6). Mo

the Meerkat might have become the first truly iconic animated brand icon in South

Africa if his character had been carefully designed from the start and if his performance

and the resulting personality had been planned in advance.

42

The same advantage would have applied to an advertising context, possibly

resulting in the campaign gaining creative recognition (through creative awards).

Listing brand icons (characters that are associated with a brand) with a distinguishable

personality off hand is a difficult task. Characters that are truly synonymous with the

brand they represent are at a short supply, even on a global scale. An example of such

character is Chester Cheetah for Cheetos, a local corn snack.

Pat Sullivan’s Felix the Cat, which was created and animated by Otto Messmer

during the 1920’s, can be considered the first ever animated character with a consistent

and individualistic personality. This does not mean that Felix’s personality is instantly

evident when watching a short featuring the famous cat, or that the essence of this

personality can be summarised in a few sentences, as is also the case with humans

(Crafton 321). Instead, a vocabulary of gestures, mannerisms, idiosyncrasies and

themes were consistently used by Messmer over the years to define Felix’s personality

Messmer is said to have modelled Felix the Cat’s mannerisms and general

behaviour on Charlie Chaplin’s comedic screen persona, which perhaps accounts for his

expressive and unique performance (Crafton 308). Arguably the most appealing of

these mannerisms is Felix’s expressive use of his body parts, especially his tail and ears.

His ears click together when he walks and his tail twists and curls, often forming a

question or exclamation mark to reflect his sentiment at the time. Although these

gestures have no apparent function from a narrative perspective they help to convey a

“nervous energy” (Crafton 327) which Felix is believed to have shared with his creator,

Otto Messmer. Felix’s movement is unlike the smooth and realistic motion we have

become accustomed with through other animated characters. His movements are

abrupt and choppy, his walk following a staccato rhythm of sorts (Crafton 293).

43

Certain idiosyncrasies have also become synonymous with Felix’s escapades in

each animated short. Most notably of these is his tail’s ability to be transformed and

used for what ever purpose is currently required by its owner: be it as an umbrella, a

cane or sword (Crafton 327). This ability extends to Felix’s environment as well: any

onscreen figure is at his disposal and can be used and moulded to suit his current

pursuit. For example, the number four, from a sign saying “478 miles”, is converted into

a chair, the number seven into a pipe and the number eight into spectacles enabling

Felix to read his newspaper (Crafton 329).

The same flexibility is granted to Felix’s character: he often displays fully

anthropomorphic behaviour, yet at the same time reminds viewers that he is a cat

(Crafton 327). This behaviour includes his famous pensive pacing or need for ‘human’

creature comforts (such as a warm house or a cigar), while we are reminded that Felix

is a carnivore every time he opens his mouth and bares his sharp incisors, eats mice or

is chased by dogs. Certain themes are also re-‐occurring and become associated with the

character. These include Felix’s victimisation by his environment (or his many

misfortunes), Felix as an outcast, Felix as a starving animal and Felix as the philanderer

(Crafton 295, 329).

These themes display Felix as having the most fundamental needs for food,

shelter, and love as humans do. The universality of these concerns and the familiar

domestic situation Felix finds himself in allows viewers to project their own concerns

into these situations. This invites viewer’s empathy with Felix which plays a

fundamental role in the likeability of any character.

Thus, viewers see Felix as a living being due to his shared concerns and

emotions, his mannerisms and idiosyncrasies as well as the reoccurring themes which

44

define his existence. This is strongly opposed to seeing him as a living being because his

movement is to a large degree an indication of real movement. Thus, Felix is real

because he thinks, not simply because he moves, which can be directly attributed to

Mesmer’s definition of a unique personality for Felix (Crafton 338).

Looking back at Chester Cheetah, the brand character for Cheetos, the corn snack

produced by the Frito Lay group, has been featuring in commercials since the late

1980’s. This character can be used as an example of how personality can be achieved in

an animated advertising character. Similar to Felix, Chester Cheetah displays unique

mannerisms, idiosyncrasies and narrative themes, which are always somehow related

to the product at hand.

As seen in “Cheetos 1988”, Chester Cheetah is a composed and slick character

that always wears sunglasses, has a goatee and speaks in rhymes with his slight

Southern American accent. He reminds viewers of an aged rock star. His long, spindly

arms and legs move with calm and fluidity and his demeanour in general is reminiscent

of the Pink Panther’s jazzy confidence.

The narrative of the commercials featuring Chester Cheetah is always product

related. Chester is either in pursuit of Cheetos as in “Chester Cheetah Cheetos Puff

Commercial 1989”, running various tests and experiments on Cheetos as seen in

“Cheetos ‘Any Lengths.’ ” or is educating the public about ‘laws’ pertaining to Cheetos as

in “Cheetos Paws Commercial 1993”. Chester Cheetah shares Felix the Cat’s ‘anything

goes’ attitude pertaining to his body parts, often using his tail for various purposes

(such as a hand crank an abseiling rope in “Cheetos 1988”, a spring in “Chester Cheetah

Cheetos Puff Commercial 1989”and a paddle in “Chester Cheetos Crunch Commercial”).

Chester’s most distinguishing mannerism is his overt reaction when he does eventually

45

come across his much loved Cheetos. He loses his calm composure, his body and neck

goes into a twist, his hair stands up, his eyes and tongue pop out and he is generally

uncontrollable.

This reaction is usually what leads to his other most distinguishing theme in the

commercials: he is clumsy and accident-‐prone. Chester always gets injured on his

pursuit for Cheetos. He reminds viewers of the Warner Brother’s Roadrunner and Willie

E Coyote characters who inevitably either fall to the ground from high above as Chester

Cheetah does in “Cheetos Train Chase”, involuntarily lunge themselves at something, get

smacked in the face or sustain a variety of other impact-‐driven injuries. These injuries

are followed by Chester shaking his head and saying “ai-‐i-‐ai-‐ai-‐ai.”

Chester also uses reoccurring phrases such as “Chester Cheetah here” at the

beginning of the commercials, “It ain’t easy, being cheesy” (usually in response to his

injuries), “the cheese that goes crunch” and “Dangerously Cheesy” in later commercials.

The ‘crunch’ in “the cheese that goes crunch” is always used as an intended pun on the

sound the corn chips make when being eaten, as well as the sound Chester Cheetah’s

impact with the ground (or which ever object relevant) makes when he injures himself.

In “Cheetos Train Chase”, Chester says “the cheese that goes crunch” while he falls off a

train track sloping down the side of a mountain and the word ‘crunch’ happens to

coincide with his impact with a train driving below.

Thus, even though Chester Cheetah’s mannerisms and idiosyncrasies are not as

plentiful and unique as Felix’s, they do still make a decent attempt at giving him an

individualistic personality. The themes arising from the narrative (Chester as an

accident-‐prone martyr of sorts) are slightly more frivolous and light-‐hearted than those

associated with the Felix character. However, this can be attributed to the nature and

46

limitations of the advertising form. Viewers are more likely to respond to a humorous,

light hearted commercial than a serious one, and commercials also governed by a time

restriction (they are rarely longer than 30 sec) which limit the development of complex

themes. However, the Chester Cheetah character shows that it is possible to create an

advertising character with an individualistic and authentic personality that viewers can

identify with and feel positive about. Thus, this indicates that, with the correct planning

and character development, the same could have been achieved in the Mo the Meerkat

character.

According to Darrin Hofmeyr, animator at Black Ginger, who animated Mo in the

remaining commercials, the character’s rig5 had not been designed effectively.

AnimMate! used a quadruped rig, usually used for four-‐legged characters, which meant

that the character effectively walked on his toes, as dogs and cats do (Hofmeyr & Treves

5) . This might have been suitable for traditional animation, as meerkats do in fact walk

on their toes. However, the actor used for the motion capture process walked on flat

feet, resulting in the data from this process not transferring accurately to the animated

character (Hofmeyr & Treves 5). The reason for this oversight is not clear, but could

possibly be attributed to the rushed production process for this commercial. Many

industry professionals are of the opinion that motion capture data should only be used

as a means of ‘primary’ data capturing to be used for basic actions and timing, and that

the animation should also been tweaked by an animator to achieve subtleties and

character personality. (Hofmeyr & Treves 4-‐5). This did not happen for the first two

commercials, resulting in Mo the Meerkat coming across as “a man in a meerkat suit”

(Hofmeyr & Treves 5). Hofmeyr also noted that for appeal, animated characters should

5 A‘rig’ refers to a skeleton-like structure used to control the movements of a three-dimensional, computer-based model during animation.

47

be more anthropomorphic (Hofmeyr & Treves 5) and Paynter felt that the character

should have been based on the personality of an actor, to get accurate proportions,

actions, gestures and facial expressions but not copied directly through motion capture

(Paynter 4).

Based on this, Black Ginger improved the character design, model and rig of the

character, to what they felt was more appealing (Hofmeyr & Treves 6). However,

Vodacom did not approve this improvement fully, and pulled the design closer to the

original, as they were afraid of alienating the viewers who already loved Mo, as Mo had

by this time become synonymous with the Vodacom brand as it was used extensively

for print, television and in store promotions, for sports sponsorships and Vodacom

events and had effectively become the ‘face of Vodacom’ (Hofmeyr & Treves 6).

Keeping this in mind, Black Ginger gradually evolved Mo over the four

commercials that they did, to get people comfortable with his behaviour as a character

(Hofmeyr & Treves 8). They also refined his design gradually to make his face softer and

friendlier and improved his rig to be more flexible (Hofmeyr & Treves 6). The figures

below show the changes made to Mo’s design from his initial design in Meerkat Stripper

to his partially adjusted design in Can’t Touch This and the final design in Can’t Touch

This.

Figure 1-‐3: Film stills from Meerkat Stripper, Can’t Touch This and Rollerskate Mambo.

48

Further, Black Ginger also increased the sophistication of animation, because

according to Hofmeyer & Treves, for Mo to be appealing, he had to be driven by

character performance as audiences are familiar with in animated films (9). Black

Ginger also introduced an additional character, the female meerkat, Moita, to function

as Mo’s love interest. These improvements and additions resulted in what Black Ginger

felt was the most successful and well developed commercial of the campaign, namely

the ‘Rollerskate Mambo’ which aired in April 2007 (Hofmeyer & Treves 7). However,

Hofmeyer noted, that Vodacom insisted on substantially more animated action for Mo in

each commercial and that the burden of choreographing these additional moves fell on

them. This burden and a general lack of ideas for these moves by the Black Ginger staff

meant that Mo’s actions became clichéd, boastful and slightly ridiculous (Hofmeyr &

Treves 8). Paynter commented on this, saying that “the result was more airtime for him

but significantly less finesse.” (4). This was also because more airtime for Mo meant that

more needed to be animated in the allocated time which made producing quality work

challenging.

2.2.3 Audience Reception – Awards and Surveys

The Vodacom commercials featuring Mo from a consumer vote and business

perspective, were hugely successful (Doherty 8) and were popular across all ages and

races (Andreotti 13; Doherty 3). The extent to which they had mass appeal was also

astonishing, as advertisements are generally focused on a specific target market, and

even if they do appeal to consumers outside this group, it is usually to a lesser extent.

Brett Morris summarises this in his statement:

“You can’t be all things to all people. Certainly a mantra we hold true, but ironically Mo

was able to do that” (5).

49

Further, Mo also had appeal across all race categories, which could be attributed

to the fact that he is an animated character and thus does not align himself with a

specific race group. However, according to both Brett Morris, creative director at the

time of the campaign, and Rita Doherty, head of strategy at the time of the campaign,

this was not a factor in his creation and was purely coincidental (Doherty 5; Morris 8).

Considering that Vodacom’s advertising displayed a general lack of strategic

planning, as discussed in the previous section, and that this campaign was intended, at

inception, for a much smaller, mainly white target audience (the Vodafone live! target

market) this may well have been a coincidence (“Vodafone live!-‐ Mobile Internet

Advertising Platform”). However, it is important to mention, at this point, that the lack

of direct reference to any race or ethnicity in the Mo the Meerkat character may well

have worked in Vodacom’s favour. Since the Yebo Gogo campaign first launched at the

end of 1994 and when the Mo the Meerkat campaign aired more than ten years later, it

is ironic that the South African public has become much less tolerant of and more

sensitive to racial references.

The South African Institute for Race Relations recently published a study entitled

The Long Shadow of Apartheid: Race in South Africa which was written and compiled by

Lucy Holborn. This study looked at the way racial incidents were reported on in the

press from 1994, at the end of Apartheid until 2010 when the study was completed.

These racial incidents included cases of alleged racism (some of which including

violence) as well as racial debates conducted mostly in the political sphere (Holborn

“Re: The long Shadow”) .

Findings of this study indicated a slight decrease in the number of racial

50

incidents being reported in the latter years, but noted that such incidents tended to

provoke a bigger response or sense of outrage from the public. According to Holborn,

this would indicate that South Africans might have become more sensitive towards

racial references and racism in general since 1994. However, although this can be

interpreted as a positive sign, as it indicates that racism is becoming increasingly

socially unacceptable to South Africans. It also shows that South Africans may be

becoming increasingly aware of race in general. Holborn speculated that this awareness

may not have increased since 1994, but that it has not fallen away either, despite the

opportunity for racial reconciliation over the past sixteen years (Holborn, “Re: The long

Shadow”) .

Holburn notes that reasons for this may include the introduction of positive

discrimination laws such as employment equity and Black Economic Empowerment,

which have legally entrenched the concept of distinct races and thus may have made

people more aware of race in their day to day lives. Furthermore, continuing socio-‐

economic divisions between races, mean that backgrounds and life experiences tend to

differ between races, all of which may also contribute to the fact that racial differences

are still present in the minds of many South Africans (Holborn “Re: The long Shadow”).

In light of this, a campaign that placed emphasis on different races and that

ridiculed the awkward reconciliation process between black and white South African’s

would likely have generated less enthusiasm from the public than at the time of the

Yebo Gogo campaign. Therefore, the fact that viewers were not able to draw any racial

or ethnic references from the Mo the Meerkat character may well have been a positive

feature to many South African’s and may have contributed to the campaign’s popularity.

51

To give an overview of the campaign’s popularity from a business and consumer

point of view I have listed the campaign, Mo the Meerkat and Vodacom’s the major

achievements and awards during the three years that the campaign ran.

Marketing Excellence Award

In 2006, at the height of the campaign, Draftfcb won a ‘Grand Prix’ award for the

Vodacom Mo the Meerkat campaign in the ‘Brand Marketing Campaign’ category of the

Sunday Times Business Times’ Marketing Excellence Awards. To be nominated for this

award, Draftfcb compiled a case study which showed how Mo the Meerkat, as a brand

icon, lifted Vodacom’s brand equity (Doherty 8; “Meerkat Dances off with Grand Prix”).

‘Brand equity’ is measured by the value of a brand, where the value of a brand

outweighs the value of the company to which the brand belongs (“Top Brands Survey”).

Millward Brown Adtrack

Adtrack is Millward Brown’s advertising research system which tracks the

likeability and notability (level of recognition) of all television commercials aired

weekly. Commercials are given a score (on a scale of one to ten) by a panel of viewers.

These scores are then used to compile an annual report which names each month’s top

scorer as well as the top 20 commercials each year (Koenderman “Likeability

Champions”; “TV ads we’ve loved for 25 years”). These results are provided in two

categories: LSM (Living Standard Measure) 5-‐7 and LSM 8-‐10. The Living Standards

Measure is a means with which advertisers segment the market (instead of relying

purely on factors such as age and race) based on criteria such as living conditions and

ownership of cars and major appliances (“Living Standards Measure”).

Below is a table showing the Millward Brown Adtrack results for 2005, 2006 and

52

2007 for each of the commercials, in both LSM categories. This includes their overall

ranking for the year (if they featured in the top 20) as well as their likability score (on a

scale from one to ten if featured in the top 20).

Commercial & Year LSM A (5-‐7) LSM B (8-‐10)

Likability Score (out of

10)

Annual Ranking (from 1-‐20)

Likability Score (out of 10)

2005 Meerkat Stripper (April) 8.6 4 (Not in top

20)

Meerkat Congaline (November) 9.4 1 3 8.6

2006

Dance King/ You Can’t Touch This (August)

8.2 10 (Not in top 20)

Mo’s Girlfriend/ Meerkat Whip (November)

8.5 3 2 8.3

2007

Rollerskate Mambo (April) 1 9

Meerkat Cruise/ “Mo Watch” (November)

(Not in top 20)

(Not in top 20)

Table 1: Millward Brown Adtrack Results, 2005-‐2007

Sources:

“Best Liked ads 2007 from Millward Brown’s AdTrack.” Bizcommunity.com. Bizcommunity.com, n.d. Web.

12 Dec. 2010.

53

Foster, Charles. “You Can’t Touch This. Millward Brown – Best Liked Ads.” The Financial Mail 1 Jun. 2007:

118. Print.

Koenderman, Tony. “ Die Leeuloop loop. Verskeie groepe hou ál meer van dieselfde advertensies.”

Finweek [ South Africa] 15 Feb. 2007: 82. Print.

“Mooi skoot, Mo. Draftfcb slaag weer met innemende advertensie.” Finweek [South Africa] 1 May 2008:

70. Print.

These figures indicate that the improvements made to the character after the

second commercial did not significantly increase consumer likeability. Likeability in

both LSM categories peaked in November 2005 with Meerkat Conga Line. ”

Generation Next Youth Brand Survey

The Sunday Times Generation Next Youth Brand Survey is published in the

Sunday times towards the middle of the year and is the youth equivalent of the Top

Brands Survey. The 2005 survey was published in May, before the Mo the Meerkat

campaign was launched and thus will not be mentioned here.

Mo the Meerkat was named the third ‘Coolest Brand Icon’ (after David Beckham and

Simba the Lion) in 2006 and 2007(“Generation Next Youth Brand Survey 2006”

15“Generation Next Youth Brand Survey 2007” 19).

Although the campaign and Mo the Meerkat as a character were very successful

from a business and consumer point of view, the campaign and character did not enjoy

the same attention in creative and professional circles. The campaign did not win any

awards for creative excellence (Doherty 8) (Andreotti 13) and was widely disliked by

industry professionals (Doherty 3). When asked about this, Rachel Andreotti attributed

it to the fact that the creative industry were simply harsher judges and judged the

54

character some what unfairly (Andreotti 13) (Morris 10) and that industry

professionals were perhaps unimpressed with the quality of animation in the first two

commercials and the grotesque nature of the first commercial (the meerkat pulling his

skin off) (Hofmeyr & Treves 10-‐11).

However, after showing the commercials to various staff members at Bugbox

Animation Studios in Johannesburg, they generally agreed on the following critique. The

character design was unappealing because it was a badly designed and executed

combination of an atomically correct meerkat and simplified cartoon character. The

most problematic feature of the character design they found was the characters’ nose

which in their opinion appears as though it is a black knob with two cavities at the

centre of the character’s face, which directly faces the viewer and attracts most

attention. Further, they noted that the character had sunken cheeks, buck teeth, no lips

or lip movement, a jaw that does not function well, a pot belly as well as unconvincing

tail movement.

They agreed that although the character design and execution of the animation

improves gradually from the third commercial onward, the factors mentioned above

give rise to a skeletal, grotesque-‐looking character which comes across as sleazy and

slightly disconcerting. They noted, however, that the grotesque nature of the character

was acceptable and justified for the first commercial as it contributed to the storyline of

the commercial. Yet, thereafter, Mo as a character, is taken out of context and changes

from an intentionally grotesque and unappealing character to something that is

presented as ‘cool’ and ‘sexy’ (a staff member pointed out that Mo is juxtaposed with

characters that are sexually attractive such as girls in bikinis which suggests that Mo is

also ‘sexy’).

55

They also found that the ideas behind the commercials steadily deteriorated in

that there was no longer any storyline or humour displayed, and that Mo’s performance

becomes stale and uninteresting and reveals nothing new or concrete about the

character. On a more general note they found that from the second commercial

onwards, it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish the purpose of the

commercials, as they do not directly promote any product or service, and that if the

customer is not familiar with the Vodacom brand, this can be highly confusing. They

also commented that consumers are generally more willing to appreciate a brand that

laughs at itself through its advertising (as was done in the first commercial) and are less

impressed by a brand that portrays themselves as appealing and fashionable.

This analysis of the commercials raises a valid critique of Mo the Meerkat as an

animated character in terms of the execution of the character, the concepts and

strategic thinking behind each commercial as well as Vodacom advertising in general.

This point of view also gives a good indication of why industry professionals were

unimpressed by the campaign and thus also an indication as to the lack of creative

awards granted to the campaign. However, it does lead to questions of why the

campaign was so successful from a consumer vote which will be discussed in the next

chapter.

2.2.4 In Conclusion

However, the end of the campaign had less to do with the characters’ popularity

or lack there of. After having produced six commercials, the campaign came to a point

where Vodacom could either “[T]urn it into a Mickey Mouse” (Doherty 3), in other

words, make Mo the ultimate icon by merchandising and franchising him, or simply let

the campaign, and Mo, come to an end (Doherty 3). Ultimately, what influenced this

56

decision was the following strategic considerations. Vodacom, under the leadership of

chief executive officer Alan Knott-‐Craig and chief marketing officer, Andre Beyers,

favoured an popularist approach, in other words, advertising based on human instinct,

following the mantra “We just rolled with it” (Doherty 2). And while Vodacom

advertising in the past had always connected to people, it was not pro-‐active in building

a considered brand identity (Doherty 5). In contrast, Vodafone, (who from 2006-‐2009

increased their stake in the Vodacom Group to become majority shareholders) placed

more value on strategy and brand building (Doherty 5).

Thus, even though consumers loved Vodacom advertising, the brand attribute

that the Mo the Meerkat was associated with was fun: Mo was an easy-‐going, fun-‐loving

bachelor. This resulted in Vodacom becoming a ‘cool and fun’ brand, but not necessarily

a brand which was empathetic and that cared for the well-‐being of their customers and

the service they received (Doherty 4). Vodacom wanted to show that they understood

and cared for their customers and that they connected (sic) with them on a more

responsible level (Doherty 4). And, unfortunately, as indicated by Rita Doherty, head of

strategy at Draftfcb at the time of the campaign: “Mo wasn’t that vehicle.” The following

chapter will serve as an analysis of the animation created as part of the campaign, as

well as Mo the Meerkat as an animated character, in an attempt to establish the

effectiveness of Mo as a ‘vehicle’ for Vodacom’s brand identity.

57

Chapter Three: An Analysis of Mo the Meerkat

The previous chapter served as an empirical documentation of the campaign in

question as well as any trends that emerged during the course of the campaign. This

chapter will place more emphasis on analysing the animation created as part of the

campaign, rather than the circumstances surrounding this animation production. This

will include a short description of all advertisements created as part the campaign as

well as an analysis of each commercial to establish the trends and failings of Mo as a

character as well as the campaign as a whole. This analysis will serve as a basis of

knowledge, to be used in the next chapter, from which conclusions can be drawn in an

attempt to establish why an animated character was used for this campaign.

3.1 Brief Description

A brief description of each of the six commercials created as part of the campaign

will be given. These descriptions are ordered chronologically corresponding to the

dates when the commercials were first aired. Chronological treatment was chosen to

correspond to the analysis of the commercial in the second part of this chapter, which

need to be discussed in chronological order to document changes during the duration of

the campaign.

3.1.1 Meerkat Stripper (See DVD)

Date: September 2005

Creative Director: Mike Barnwell

58

Director: Peter Pohorsky of Plank Film Productions

Animation: AnimMate!

Post Production: Lung Animation

Song: Hot Chocolate’s You Sexy Thing

A female character is shown sitting on the coach in her living room, fixated on

the mobile phone in her hand. She hears something and looks up to find Maurice (Mo)

the meerkat with his rear end facing her way, twirling his tail in his hand and winking at

her over his shoulder. He performs a series of seductive dance moves, while the female

character looks on in astonishment. His seductive moves culminate in him tearing off

his skin, first from his upper body and then from his bottom, like an impromptu

striptease act. He leisurely throws the skin torn from his bottom, only to knock a vase

off a shelf on the wall. The female character’s expression has since turned to a

combination of disgust and disbelief. A mobile phone appears on screen, flashing a

series of symbols (a music compact disc, a soccer ball, a dice and an envelope) and

finally the video footage of Mo dancing, as seen earlier in the commercial, on its screen,

while a male voice-‐over recited the following: “Music, sports, games, pictures and just

about anything else come alive on your mobile phone with Vodafone Live! only from

Vodacom.” The commercial ends with the Vodacom and Vodafone Live! logos.

3.1.2 Meerkat Conga Line (See DVD)

Date: November 2005

Creative Director: Gerhard Myburgh

Director: Jeremy Goodall from Feel Good Films

Animation: AnimMate!

Post Production: Lung Animation

59

Song: Body Rockers’ I like the way you Move

Mo, wearing blue board shorts and an unbuttoned shirt with a blue, ‘Hawaiian’

floral pattern, is shown dancing to the music coming from his ‘boom box’ (placed on the

railing of what seems to be a bridge) on a pavement in the inner city. The music attract

the attention of two basketball players, a waiter, a taxi driver and a series of other

people in the surrounding city who rush to join in on the fun. Mo, accompanied by his

portable stereo, continues dancing while people from all directions come streaming

towards him. They form a Conga line on a courtyard between buildings and move

through the city with Mo in the lead. Well known South African sport celebrities, Brian

Habana and Ryk Neetling are shown up close while they participate in the Conga line.

The commercial ends with a male voice-‐over reciting: “Yebo Fever, make every moment

count this summer with Vodacom, South Africa’s leading cellular network” and the

Vodacom logo.

3.1.3 Dance King/ Can’t Touch This (See DVD)

Date: August 2006


Director: Bruce Paynter from CAB Films

Animation: Black Ginger

Post Production: Tim Goodwin from Premiere Post Production

Song: MC Hammer’s U Can’t Touch This

This commercial takes place in a club at the 2006 ‘Dance King’ competition.

60

Onlookers form a circle around two contestants who are trying to ‘out dance’ each

other. Mo enters the circle twirling his tail and wearing a golden chain with the word

‘Mo’ as a pendant. One of the contestants, currently in the lead, smirks at the sight of Mo.

Mo however, puts him to shame by impressing onlookers with his diverse and flexible

moves such as doing the splits, walking on one hand and standing on his tail. Mo’s

opponent lands himself in a tangle while performing a ‘break dance’ move, Mo,

however, instead of gloating, helps him up and everybody starts dancing together. A

logo featuring the words ‘Can’t Touch This’ appears on screen. A blue background closes

in around Mo’s face to reveal the Vodacom logo and the words ‘Can’t Touch This.’

3.1.4 Meerkat Whip/ Mo’s Girlfriend (See DVD)

Date: November 2006





Song: Daddy Yankee featuring Lil Jon and Pitbull Gasolina

Mo, wearing blue board shorts and the same golden chain as in the previous

commercial, ‘cruises’ down to the beachfront in his blue Cadillac convertible, bobbing

his head and meeting waves from onlookers on the pavement. Mo parks his Cadillac,

flips a switch and presses a red button which transforms his backseat to reveal huge

speakers. He jumps out of the front seat, flinging himself over the windscreen, landing

on the bonnet of the car, where he starts dancing to the music blaring from the

speakers. A crowd forms around the car while Mo performs his daring dance moves.

While dancing, Mo spots his female counterpart, Moita, dancing along on top of a beach

61

side bar. Their eyes meet: it’s love at first sight for Mo. Unfortunately, though, Moitia

jumps off the bar and disappears out of Mo’s sight. A blue background closes in around

Mo’s face and Mo winks. The camera cuts first to a female character in her bikini

dancing on the beach at sunset and then to the Vodacom logo on a blue background,

throbbing to the music.

3.1.5 Rollerskate Mambo (See DVD)

Date: April 2007





Song: Lou Bega’s Mambo No. 5

This commercial is set in a bustling park, with people cycling, walking and doing

yoga, amongst other things. Mo appears, skating along a footpath, wearing short blue

running shorts, a sleeveless white shirt with turquoise-‐blue ribbing and the letter ‘M’ on

the chest, green earphones connected to an antenna as well as green roller skates. Mo

jumps, spins in the air, only to land on his feet again, back to front. He starts skating

backwards, past two female characters in tennis gear, who meet him with smiles and

waves. He blows them a kiss and continues skating, this time facing forward. He skates

past a female character sitting on a bench, reading. He picks a rose from a bush, which

he hands to her and winks. He continues along the foot path, where he catches a Frisbee

coming his way and throws it back to its owner, who delights at the small roses now

62

covering the Frisbee. He comes across a female character wearing a dress, and skates

around her so quickly that her dress lifts. Finally he spots Moita, the female meerkat, he

came across in the previous commercial wearing a matching outfit. He skates towards

her as fast as he possibly can and they start dancing a mambo on roller-‐skates. The

commercial ends with both characters lifting from the ground against the city skyline

and the sun on the horizon, surrounded by small hearts. The camera cuts to the

Vodacom logo on a blue background and a smaller, pink logo of the words ‘Vodacom by

your side.” The camera cuts again to a shot of the Johannesburg skyline at night time

and numerous small hearts and the ‘Vodacom by your side’ logo flowing around.

3.1.6. Meerkat Cruise/ ‘Mo Watch’ (See DVD)

Date: November 2007


Director: Mike Middleton from On Camera Productions


Post Production: Sabrina O’Sullivan from Sabrina O’Sullivan Post Productions

Song: Bob Sinclar’s Rock This Party (Everybody Dance Now)

This commercial opens with a shot of a yacht ‘cruising’ along the ocean and then

cuts to Moitia onboard the yacht, leaning over a railing, admiring Mo’s golden necklace.

The camera then zooms out from the yacht, pans across an aerial shot of the ocean and

beach line and cuts to a beach, filled with people, where Mo is on lifeguard duty,

wearing red board shorts and sunglasses. Mo pulls out his binoculars and notices the

yacht in the distance and Moitia onboard. He grabs his rescue board, runs across the

beach, throws his board up into the air, where it transforms into a wind surfing gear. He

63

jumps on the board, and windsurfs to the yacht surrounded by dolphins. On arrival he

throws the captain his iPod to put on some music. He grabs Moita and the two start

dancing while the rest of the people join in. The commercial ends with Mo and Moitia

walking to the bow of the yacht, where Moita gets on the railing and spreads out her

arms, with Mo behind her which parodies the famous scene from the 1997 James

Cameron film, Titanic. A blue background closes in around their faces to reveal the

Vodacom logo.

3.2 Analysis


The viewer is introduced to Mo the Meerkat: the male striper, who happens to be

a bipedal meerkat. The sign here functions by linking the image of a meerkat, as is

presented in the commercial, to our mental representation of the animal. Under normal

circumstances, this mental representation would signify a wild animal originally from

the Kalahari desert and generate a variety of connotation: It is an animal that

occasionally stands on its hind legs, but mainly walks on all fours. Most of us think of a

cute, rodent-‐like animal, which is skittish, but generally peaceful and naive.

The discussion of advertising semiotics in connection with Judith Williams’

Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising in chapter one,

highlighted that the logic that links the signifier to the signified in advertising is non-‐

sequential and can thus not be deducted by a logical argument presented in any

commercial. This is also the case with the campaign at hand, as Mo the Meerkat (as a

signifier) is not linked to the signified (a cute wild animal) by logic. This link is further

manipulated when Mo starts performing seductive, yet somewhat sleazy dance moves

64

and rips his skin off. Because this is behaviour not normally associated with the animal,

Mo can no longer simply be seen as a meerkat, but finds new signification with this

added dimension in play. This move forces viewers to generate new connotations based

on their experience of strippers, sexual dancing and perverted individuals. These

connotations are combined with and contrasted to those already established in

connection to the wild animal to create an entirely new, yet somewhat pleasantly

entertaining, experience.

Thus, for the above mentioned scenario to work it is important that Mo as a

character resemble a real life meerkat and draw on the same connotations in the

viewer’s mind. Keeping this in mind, his character design is not ideal as it seems to be a

combination of a simplified cartoon character meerkat and a human and is somewhat

oddly shaped. His face is fairly unappealing, in particular his nose, which reads like a

dark cavity at the centre of his face, attracts most negative attention, followed by his

protruding front teeth, sunken cheeks and disproportionately large eyelids. This facial

structure is not really reminiscent of a meerkat’s which is a lot rounder and more petite,

as can be seen below.

Figure 4-‐5: A cropped still from Meerkat Stripper and an image of a meerkat

taken from the Meerkat Manor page on the Animal Planet website.

65

Mo’s body is also not well shaped: he has a pot belly and lumps on his chest

which come across as breasts as well as scrawny arms and legs.

Yet, Mo’s unappealing face and flawed build does not entirely do the character a

disservice. His pot belly and flabby chest and unappealing face reminds the viewer of an

middle-‐aged man, or an perverted uncle, which together with the seductive, slightly

clumsy moves and him pulling his fur off, makes the entire scenario grotesque and

slightly bizarre: a ‘freak show’ of sorts. This is reflected in the female character’s utterly

mortified face and thus gives the viewer an indication that this is the response the

creators were looking for. Yet, despite the grotesqueness, or possibly because of it, the

viewer can not help but find the scene at least slightly humorous, even if it is only out of

shared embarrassment with the female character.

A mobile phone appears on screen, re-‐playing the video footage of Mo dancing,

as seen earlier in the commercial, on its screen, and a voice saying: “Music, sports,

games, pictures and just about anything else come alive on your mobile phone with

Vodafone Live! Only from Vodacom.” This places the scene in context by classifying Mo

as one of the many forms of entertainment available on the Vodafone Live! portal. This

also links the character to the Vodafone Live! portal and Vodafone Live! by association.

Thus, on an overt level Vodafone Live! (through its association with Mo) is portrayed as

a fun and cheeky brand that doesn’t mind laughing at itself.

3.2.2 Meerkat Conga Line

In this commercial, Mo the Meerkat, as he was introduced to viewers in

the Vodafone Live! launch commercial, is placed in an entirely new, seemingly unrelated

66

context. Mo is transformed from being a sleazy and grotesque male stripper, to a beach-‐

goer or typical South African holiday-‐maker (suggested by his choice of clothes: blue

board shorts and an unbuttoned shirt with a blue, ‘Hawaiian’ floral pattern), this time

flaunting entirely different dance moves in an urban setting, but still wearing the same

bow tie.

However, the storyline of this commercial does not establish why Mo is wearing

a holiday outfit in an inner city context or why he is wearing a bowtie. The choice of

clothing may be attributed to the summer theme this commercial claims to have which

is revealed at the end of the commercial, when the narrator says: “Yebo Fever, make

every moment count this summer with Vodacom”. However, this still does not explain

why the commercial is shot in the inner city rather than on the beach or some where

synonymous with summer leisure-‐time activity. The only explanation a South African

viewer may find for this, if they are observant enough, is that the commercial was shot

in the Cape Town inner city (recognizable by the buildings and urban environment) and

that the Conga line that has been formed might be heading towards the beach. However,

there is no possible explanation for the bow tie within the storyline and it may thus

simply serve as a reminder of where viewers first met Mo: as a male stripper in the

previous commercial.

This reference, however, is slightly problematic. Mo is no longer portrayed as a

‘freak show’ but is now shown dancing (this time performing dance moves reminiscent

of rock music rather than the seductive kind displayed in the previous commercial) and

having fun on his own accord and thereby inadvertently drawing a crowd of admirers

which he then ‘leads’ around the city. This response is much different to that of the

mortified female character in Meerkat Stripper and Mo is transformed from a grotesque,

67

bizarre character to a popular and stylish one.

No adequate context or explanation is established for this change and Mo’s

performance reveals little about his character other than that he can motivate a crowd,

seems to be enjoying himself and that he is popular. This change in character makes his

design problematic as well, because a ‘hero’ character generally needs to be visually

appealing and loveable to the viewer, feelings that Mo’s design do not convey. Further,

an important factor that plays a role in character appeal is personification and show of a

more human-‐like range of emotions. Yet, Mo’s design overlooked lip and lip movement,

which makes it impossible for the character to smile convincingly. Additionally, the

mechanics of Mo’s jaw are very stiff and the movement of his pupils too rapid which

translates into a facial expression that doesn’t convey happiness explicitly but simply

denotes a lack of specific facial expression all together.

More importantly, though, unlike Meerkat Stripper, the purpose of this

commercial is unclear, as there is no evident link between Mo and any Vodacom

product or campaign and thus the link between Mo and Vodacom can only be assumed.

Further, this commercial also lacks a storyline or real humour, and the only cohering

factor that can be found is the summer theme. Yet, other than Mo’s holiday or beach

attire and the narrator announcing “Yebo Fever, make every moment count this

summer with Vodacom, South Africa’s leading cellular network” at the end of the

commercial, this theme is also not really relevant. The term ‘Yebo Fever’, other than

being a reference to the earlier Yebo Gogo campaign, and translating directly as meaning

‘Yes Fever’ is not very meaningful and is relatively confusing.

In light of the above criticism, it becomes evident that it is increasingly

unclear what Mo as a character signifies in this commercial. Neither Mo’s actions nor

68

the narrative of this commercial provide any guidance for viewers to connect Mo as a

signifier to a convincing identity or meaning. Ordinarily, as mentioned in connection

with the discussion of advertising semiotics in chapter one, Williamson notes that

individuals make a connection between signifier and signified based on their culture-‐

specific, learnt knowledge on the subject (Williamson 19). Thus, under normal

circumstances, as discussed in connection with Meerkat Stripper, the image of a meerkat

would signify a wild animal that lives in the Kalahari Desert and various connotations

would be drawn from this mental representation. However, in this case, this signified

has already been compromised when Mo displays (relatively shocking) human

behaviour in Meerkat Stripper. Thus, in Meerkat Conga Line Mo draws reference to the

stripping, bipedal meerkat viewers met in the previous commercial and to connotations

associated with this performance (Mo is clumsy and his moves slightly sleazy which

reminds viewers of an perverted and grotesque individual). However, these

connotations are no longer applicable either, because Mo is now being portrayed as

stylish and popular, which contrasts his previous identity.

Thus, on an overt level, Mo’s behaviour in Meerkat Conga Line generates

connotations of being individualistic and dynamic (he attracts, motivates and leads the

crowd). He is popular, stylish (as showcased by his dance moves) and fun-‐loving.

However, these connotations are non developed because Mo’s character design does

not lend itself to a popular, hero-‐like character and because there is no justification in

the storyline to support this new identity Mo displays. Williamson states in her text

Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising that the function of the

overt level of an advertisement, although it may seem to simply be promoting the

qualities and attributes of product, is to generate less obvious meanings, the ‘latent’

69

meanings (Williamson 19). Mo as a signifier, however, fails to signify anything on this

‘latent’ level: He is not a wild animal because he walks on all fours and wears clothes. He

no longer is a male stripper which happens to be a meerkat because he is now being

portrayed as stylish and popular. There is also no clear link between him and any

Vodacom product or service and he thus does not appear to be attempting to be a brand

mascot either. This means that Mo as a signifier can no longer be linked to any

functional meaning or identity which results in the absence of one clear identity. This is

because Mo makes reference to too many conflicting identities such as a grotesqe and

slightly sleazy stripper as well as a stylish and popular holiday-‐maker. Thus, Mo

essentially is an inconclusive or ‘empty’ signifier.


This commercial, which marks the change from motion capture to keyframe

animation within the campaign, addresses certain issues raised in regard to the

character design and Mo’s facial performance. Mo’s nose has been modified to be more

accurate and detailed, slightly smaller and thus no longer attracts unwanted attention.

His mouth has also been refined: His front teeth no longer protrude and due to an

updated design which allows for lip movement, he occasionally reveals a full set of teeth

(which make his front teeth seem less isolated and noticeable). Mo no longer has

sunken cheeks, but plump ones which make him resemble a chipmunk ever so slightly,

but are effective form a character appeal perspective. His eyelids are no longer big and

disproportionate and these changes in collaboration make for a rounder, more adorable

and friendly-‐looking face. The rest of Mo’s body has also been re-‐worked: He no longer

has a pot belly and his body has been adapted to resemble a human’s and generally

70

comes across as more anatomically correct.

The second aspect of the character refinement pertains to enhanced performance

and more convincing facial expressions. As Mo’s improved design allowed for lips and

lip movement, Mo can now smile and show a larger variety of facial expressions which

include movements of his eyes and eyebrows. His tail is now integrated into his overall

performance and is used more as an accessory rather than as something that simply

lags behind him. Due to these improvements, Mo comes across as more lively and

cheeky. The animation and performance as a whole is well executed and his movements

are now more natural, fluid and elastic.

However, regardless of these improvements, Mo’s performance in this commercial

does not reveal anything new about Mo as a character and does not considerably

enhance his personality. The renewed cheekiness that is revealed in this commercial

reminds us of the Mo viewers met in Meerkat Stripper Yet, Mo’s actions are very similar

to those in Meerkat Congaline. He is performing dance moves (Hip Hop moves this

time), he seems to be enjoying himself, he is again portrayed as being in the lead (he

‘out-‐dances’ his opposition) and is very popular amongst the crowd and invites them to

start dancing.

Although Mo is shown briefly as being humble, by helping the other contestant up

after he fails the competition, this point is disregarded by the ‘Can’t touch this’ slogan at

the end of the commercial, which suggests that Mo (and possibly, by connection,

Vodacom) is better than the opposition. This is a fairly arrogant statement and Mo is

ultimately still portrayed as popular and stylish, unlike the Mo’ viewers met in Meerkat

Stripper.

71

The biggest disappointment in this commercial (and in Meerkat Conga Line) is that

there is no effective humour or storyline to tie the commercial together. The only

reason provided to find Mo appealing is because he is stylish, because he can dance, he

is popular and better than his opposition, which is not only a very shallow and arrogant

assumption, but also possibly a reason not to like Mo (consumers are more likely to

appreciate a brand that mocks itself than a brand that blows its own horn).

Furthermore, this commercial again seems to be devoid of clear purpose and only

presents an indirect link between Mo and Vodacom.

In light of the above observations, it becomes evident that Mo as a signifier is

visually more appealing in this commercial. Improvements to Mo’s face and character

design in general, as well as his enhanced performance and show of emotion, make for

an appealing character which is more entertaining to watch. Thus, on an overt level,

Mo’s lively performance in this commercial generates connotations of being cheeky,

confident and in control which are consistent with and enhance connotations drawn

from his earlier performance in Meerkat Conga Line.

However, incongruities still persist. Mo takes on a new identity again, this time

as a Hip Hop dancer, without there being any suggestion in the storyline of how this

identity connects to his previous identities as male stripper in Meerkat Stripper and

holiday maker in Meerkat Congaline. There is also no clear link presented in the

commercial between Mo and any Vodacom product or service and it can therefore only

be assumed that he is their brand mascot of sorts. This commercial presents nothing

new about Mo that could explain his differing roles in each commercial, develop his

personality and point viewers towards a spesific identity for him.

Mo, as a signifier, generates numerous signifieds (in form of different roles Mo

72

has filled and the connotations dawn from these) and thus in absence of a logical,

central identity for Mo supported by the narrative is left with a non-‐functional and

superficial one. In light of this, viewers are forced to accept Mo as a signifier at face

value without considering what he signifies on a latent level, which makes viewers

reliant on the superficial connotations drawn from his performance to find meaning.

Thus, although Mo is more visually appealing and entertaining in this commercial he is

still is an ‘indefinite’ signifier as he does not have a functional identity.

3.2.4 Meerkat Whip/ Mo’s Girlfriend

This commercial is little more than a rehash of Meerkat Conga Line and Can’t

Touch This, with a slight variety in choice of music (this time making use of a Latin-‐

American inspired soundtrack) and location. Mo again starts dancing and attracts a

crowd which he woes with his flexible dance moves and modified car. He inspires the

crowd, this time to the extent that they start copying his moves. The commercial again

makes reference to a summer theme. This time, however, unlike in Meerkat Conga Line,

this theme is substantiated as the commercial is set at the beach front and Mo is

wearing board shorts and sunglasses and his onlookers are wearing swim gear. The

ambiguous term ‘Yebo Feva’ is used again as in Meerkat Conga Line.

However, this summer theme and showcase of girls in bikinis, including Mo’s

new love interest, Moitia, the female meerkat (also in a bikini), tells us little about Mo

that we have not already seen, except perhaps that he is now also being portrayed as

‘sexy’, by association, and that he is interested in ‘sexy’ girls. The commercial again

displays no real humour and only a very superficial storyline as well as a lack of clear

connection to the Vodacom brand.

73

This commercial is also heavily reliant on visual gags, rather than a humorous

storyline, to create entertainment. The first such gag comprises of Mo opening the roof

of his modified cabriolet and pressing a button which sets the transformation of the

backseat into giant speakers, in motion, leaving the entire car thumping to the beat of

the music. The commercial also features local celebrities briefly to get audiences

attention. Schalk Burger and JP Pietersen who play for the South African national rugby

team are shown sitting at a street side café watching Mo’s car while it transforms. The

second such gag is that Mo’s eyes pop out of his head and his pupils turn into hearts

when he sees Moitia, the female meerkat. These gags are used to create a situation

which, as noted by Michael Herbst in the discussion of the advertising spectacle as

mentioned in chapter one, attract and impress viewers. Further, these gags (in

combination with the music) may be visually appealing and enjoyable to watch, but do

not signify anything about Mo as a character or contribute to creating a functional

personality and identity for him.

As has become common in the three previous commercials featuring Mo, he is

again portrayed in a new situation in Meerkat Whip as a holiday maker on the beach,

without any substantiation for how this role relates to those seen in previous

commercials. Even if viewers by this time have accepted or concluded that Mo is a

multitalented meerkat and is involved in fun activities all across South Africa, his

performances still do not provide any information as to who this meerkat is, where he is

from and what his personality is like. Thus, even though Mo as a signifier generates

visual appeal and entertainment, he does not generate functional signification (the

confusion around Mo’s identity persists) and viewers have no choice but to accept him

at face value as no deeper meaning is presented.

74

3.2.5 Rollerskate Mambo

This technically well executed commercial of Mo and his love interest, Moitia,

roller skating the Mambo presents the viewer with a slight variation in the ‘tale of Mo’.

The location has changed and the theme of the commercial is more orientated towards

‘love’ and flirting than summer and dancing. This change, however, still doesn’t account

for a well conceived storyline or substantial information about Mo other than that he

likes flirting with girls.

This commercial, similar to Meerkat Whip, makes use of cheap gags for

entertainment and sees an increase in such stunts. These gags listed chronologically

include:

-‐ Mo skating past a bush which instantly grows beautiful roses for him to pick.

-‐ Mo throwing a Frisbee back to its owner which is suddenly covered in small

roses when she catches it.

-‐ Mo skating around a female character at lightning speed resulting in a gush of

air which blows her skirt up.

-‐ Mo activating the ‘rocket function’ on his roller skates that propels him forward

at an increased speed.

-‐ Mo and Moitia floating up into the air at the end of the commercial, surrounded

by a swarm of blue and pink hearts.

This last gag is accompanied by the slogan ‘Vodacom by your side’ in pink

lettering. It is not quite clear what this statement means exactly, other than being a pun

on the lyrics of the sound track. Is Vodacom proposing their love for their subscribers or

75

are they vowing to ‘be there’ for their subscribers, in other words, be more reliable and

improve their service? It does seem like an attempt by Vodacom to portray themselves

as a brand that cares for its customers, possibly motivated by MTN’s service-‐based

marketing strategy. This attempt comes across as fairly insincere, considering that this

is not part of the ideas their campaign, and Mo, is endorsing.

This commercial is technically very well executed, showcasing fluid and elastic

movement and an appealing character design (Mo’s face is adorable and expressive).

Mo comes across as cheeky and fun-‐loving and is enjoyable to watch. The storyline,

however, is entirely driven by the gags listed above, instead of making use of a cohesive

narrative structure. Although viewers are reasonably familiar with Mo as a character by

this stage, he shows no development or sincere emotional response that could give

insight into his personality. Mo is portrayed as a superhero revealing no character

flaws, and is never faced with any problem to solve (he is always in control of the

situation). Even though this might make him look like Superman, it also results in a ‘flat’

and one-‐dimensional but relatively boring character. Further, the confusion around

Mo’s identity persists as viewers are still not presented with any information as to his

changing identity in each commercial or his personality or identity beyond these roles.

Thus, on a latent level, the signification generated from Mo as a signifier is still is

superficial and inconclusive.

3.2.6 Mo Watch

This is the third, and final, summer themed commercial of the campaign which

relies heavily on various visual gags and extravagant, yet ridiculous, moves by Mo. Mo is

shown surveying the beach through binoculars as part of his lifeguard duties. When he

spots Moitia on a yacht, his binoculars miraculously turn into bigger and better ones so

76

he can get a better look at her. He then grabs his rescue board and is shown sprinting

across the beach in slow motion, which is a reference to (or mockery of) the clichéd

signature scene from the American drama series, Baywatch.

When he reaches the water, Mo’s rescue board transforms into Kite surfing

equipment and he rides the waves to the yacht accompanied by playful dolphins. The

extravaganza does not end here. Mo lets go of the kite in mid air, lands on the yacht and

slides down its windscreen. While doing this he throws the captain his iPod (which

presumably has been in his pocket all along) which turns miraculously into a sound

system with huge speakers. The commercial ends with Mo holding Moitia from behind

while they balance on the railing at the bow of the yacht and sail into the sunset. This

heavily clichéd scene is a recreation of a scene featuring Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate

Winslet in the 1997 James Cameron film, Titanic.

This commercial is not driven by a believable storyline or character performance

and is nothing more than an uninteresting series of visual stunts. These stunts can be

considered another attempt to attract, impress and intrigue viewers, which is an

advertising device noted in the discussion of the advertising spectacle by Michael

Herbst in chapter one. Even though it is technically well executed, the implausibility and

ridiculousness of the featured events comes across like another pompous display of

Mo’s talents. This commercial again does not develop Mo’s personality or reveal

anything about his identity. Mo as a character is reduced to nothing more than a visual

stunt without real meaning or identity.

3.3 In Conclusion

77

3.3.1 Personality in the Mo the Meerkat Character

Analysis of the campaign has revealed that Mo as a character displays no

consistent gestures, unique mannerisms or idiosyncrasies. It can be deducted from Mo’s

actions and interaction with the crowd that he has a calming and confident demeanour,

as this is what crowds often look for in a leader. Yet, there are no subtleties in his

performance or movement to suggest this explicitly. This can be contrasted to the

abrupt and abstract movement of Felix the cat, which together with his expressive and

energetic tail and ears denoted a kind of “nervous energy” (Crafton 327) that

surrounded him. In contrast, Mo’s movements suggest only that he is dancing, not what

the mood of these movements is and how this mood impacts on his disposition.

Mo makes only very limited use of his body parts as tools for unique and

expressive gestures. Unlike Felix the Cat and Chester Cheetah, Mo only once makes use

of his tail as an ‘extra limb’ of sorts in Can’t Touch This. Mo here uses his tail as a lasso

rope and as a plinth which is contrasted to the use of his tail simply as an attachment

affected by gravity, in other commercials. Further, the realistic leniency seen in Felix the

Cat’s ability to mould his environment to suit his need at the time, referred to as

“polymorphous plasticism” (329) by Donald Crafton, is here replaced by gags. Instead of

making creative use of his environment, Mo relies on incredulous transformations

(rocket fire behind his shoes in Rollerskate Mambo, his rescue board turning into kite-‐

surfing equipment in ‘Mo Watch’ to name a few). Although these gags are visually

impressive, they deprive viewers of unique idiosyncrasies that could be associated with

Mo as a character.

Further, Mo’s performance does not lend itself to the formation of any themes or

reoccorring concerns to be associated with the character. This is because the narrative

78

of the commercial lacks any problem or problem solving aspect, and thus displays

nothing that could be of concern to Mo or be used to develop mannerisms and

idiosyncrasies. Furthermore, the characterisation of Mo as stylish, arrogant and always

in control also distances the viewer from forming empathy with Mo, since he is never

faced with any problem viewers can identify with.

The result of this lack of mannerisms, gestures, idiosyncrasies and any theme or

concern associated with Mo, results in a character that does not come across as thinking

and feeling, but instead is seen as living simply because of the realistic human

movement it portrays.

3.3.2 Character Design and Performance

Analysis of the campaign at hand revealed that the initial Vodacom Live! launch

commercial is quite far removed in style from the subsequent five commercials for

Vodacom. The Vodafone Live! commercial seems to make use of a successful

combination of a reasonably humorous and quirky storyline and an unusual character.

Even though Mo was badly designed and his performance was unsatisfactory, his design

was sufficient to give the story credibility and to portray Vodafone as a cheeky and

likeable brand. The character in this commercial may be slightly disconcerting, but has

appeal due to his cheekiness and the humour of the storyline.

The subsequent transformation of Mo, from a male stripper in Meerkat Stripper

to the holiday maker and party animal in Meerkat Conga Line, however, proved to be

problematic. This was partially because the connotations that Mo’s performance in

Meerkat Stripper generated (he reminded viewers of a clumsy, slightly sleazy and

somewhat grotesque individual) clashed with those generated by his stylish and

79

popular persona in Meerkat Conga Line and the following four commercials.

In contrast to Meerkat Stripper, the subsequent commercials lacked convincing

narrative, humour and character driven performance which developed a unique

personality and identity for Mo. Later commercials were more reliant on visual gags to

create humour and entertainment than on narrative. Mo’s repetitive dance moves in

each commercial and his increasingly stale performance through out the campaign gave

rise to a superficial, seemingly flawless and slightly pompous character. The subsequent

commercials also lacked purpose, as the narrative presents no clear link between Mo

and any Vodacom product or service.

The improvements that were made to Mo’s character design and his

performance (giving him a cuter face, atomically stable body and more convincing

display of facial expressions) enhances his character appeal on a visual level and makes

it more enjoyable to watch him. However, these improvements did not resolve any of

the issues listed above (lack of narrative, convincing character performance, purpose of

the character and commercial) leaving the character flawed on a conceptual level.

3.3.3 Mo as a Signifier

Since Mo is an anthropomorphic character, Mo the Meerkat draws signification

from more than one source. Anthropomorphism in animation dates as far back as the

1920’s with Otto Mesmer’s Felix the Cat and further blurs the line between nature and

culture with people often more familiar with animated animals than their real

counterparts. As discussed in connection with Meerkat Stripper, Mo as a signifier, in this

commercial, generated meaning through implied, culture-‐specific mental connections to

a meerkat, as we are familiar with the animal in its natural habitat, and to a male

80

stripper (by displaying human behaviour associated with this profession). Therefore,

the identity created for Mo here is a combination of these the two signifieds, and is

shaped by the connotations that they generate.

In considering the above, it can be concluded that Mo as a signifier in each

commercial draws reference to the wild animal as well as which ever human persona is

relevant (be it a male stripper, a holiday maker or party starter, a hip hop dancer, a

beach bum, a roller skater or lifeguard). However, signification starts to become

problematic from Meerkat Conga Line onwards. This is because Mo as a signifier

automatically also draws reference to the identity created for Mo as a sleazy, stripping

meerkat, because this is what viewers came to know him as first. Because connotations

generated from Mo’s performance in Meerkat Stripper (he is clumsy, sleazy and

grotesque) clash with those created by his subsequent performances (he is popular and

stylish) these differing personas can not be consolidated. Thus in the absence of one

clear signified, Mo’s identity becomes muddled and inconclusive, with viewers unsure

about which role Mo actually embodies.

Thus, because viewers are unable to connect Mo to a meaningful and logical

identity, they are forced to identify with the superficial personas created for him by his

performances in each commercial. Mo as a signifier and his actions as signified generate

only very shallow characteristics, such as that:

- He is able to perform contemporary and popular dance routines with

confidence and flair and always seems to be enjoying himself doing so.

- He is popular amongst a crowd and is able to motivate and entertain them.

- He is cheeky and confident.

81

- He is always at the top of his game and in the lead, never revealing any flaws

and coming across as pompous at times.

- He enjoys flirting with girls.

Thus, these characteristics signify that Mo as a character is fun-‐loving, popular,

confident, yet slightly arrogant and is a ‘flirt’.

In conclusion, the analysis of each commercial created as part of the campaign at hand

revealed that the Meerkat Stripper was the most successful commercial from a

conceptual perspective. Even though Mo as a character was appealing on a visual level

and was enjoyable to watch in the subsequent commercials, he did not generate

functional and meaningful signification on a conceptual level. This was because the

commercials from Meerkat Conga Line onwards did not make use of convincing

narrative, character performance that developed a unique personality for Mo and

because the commercials did not present any clear link between Mo and any Vodacom

product or service. This combination gave rise to a superficial and self-‐congratulatory

character which displayed repetitive and increasingly overworked performance. The

following chapter will further develop and asses issues such as those listed above in

regards to the Mo the Meerkat character. This assessment will attempt to establish why

Mo the Meerkat as an animated character was chosen in this campaign.

82

Chapter Four: Assessment & Conclusions

This chapter will look at issues that emerged during the documentation and

analysis of the campaign. These are:

-‐ The contradictions in the brand identity created for Vodacom via Mo the

Meerkat as a character.

-‐ The concerns that arose due to a shift in strategy from Vodacom Live! to

Vodacom.

-‐ Findings that can be deducted from the campaign’s Millward Brown ratings.

Lastly, certain factors that arose during the analysis of the campaign have

revealed the possibility that Mo the Meerkat as an animated character was used as a

‘spectacle’. These factors include Mo’s lack of individualistic personality and the lack of

convincing narrative in each commercial. This will also be discussed here.

4.1 Assessment

4.1.1 Animated Characters and Brand Identity

According to Beasly & Danesi, a brand identity is the ‘image’ or framework of

meaning created for a brand, which acts as a consumer interface to place this product or

service in consumers’ consciousness by creating a link between its advertisements and

the product or service in a retail environment. The goal of this is to ensure that

customers recognise the brand and hopefully purchase it (Beasly & Danesi 17-‐ 20).

Ideally, this brand identity should also generate feelings of trust, confidence and

83

commitment towards the brand. This is important to ensure that consumers feel that

the product or service plays an irreplaceable role in their daily lives resulting in the

product or service being purchased repeatedly (Brauer in “Top Brands Survey.”).

A brand identity is usually created by manufacturing a personality for a brand by

generating certain connotations (via advertising semiotics) which represent the brand

favourably in consumers’ minds. In this instance, when an animated character is used,

this is achieved by creating a likeable personality for the character who then becomes

synonymous with the brand. Rita Doherty describes successful advertising as being able

to captivate consumers’ attention and give them an immediate sense of what the brand

is about (Doherty 8). Characters, in her opinion, are ideal in achieving this objective as

they combine numerous “rich character elements” (Doherty 8) into a small and dynamic

package with which consumers can have a relationship and generate feelings towards

(Doherty 8).

Even though there is no direct link between Mo and any Vodacom product or

service presented in the narrative of any of the commercials from Meerkat Conga Line

onwards, the character is still associated with the Vodacom brand. This is because Mo is

seen as the main ‘actor’ in the Vodacom branded commercials and thus a link between

Mo and the Vodacom brand forms in consumers’ minds. If this association or link was

reflected and emphasised in a clever manner in the narrative of the commercials as was

done in Meerkat Stripper, this association might automatically become a positive one.

However, regardless of how this association is formed, this also means that Mo’s

personality and actions are a direct reflection on the Vodacom brand.

This also means that Mo’s characteristics are transferred to or are synonymous

with the brand. As established during the analysis of the campaign in the previous

84

chapter, Mo’s performance through-‐out the campaign generated only shallow

personality for Mo on an overt level, and non-‐functional signification on a latent level.

He is portrayed as fun-‐loving ‘flirt’ who is popular and confident, yet slightly pompous.

This means that, by association, Vodacom becomes known as a fun-‐loving, confident

brand which sees itself as popular amongst its subscribers and which is arrogant and

aware of its position as leader in its market. These characteristics are not necessarily

ideal for a brand, because they do not promote consumer’s confidence in the brand, all

of which may jeopardises brand loyalty. Thus, Vodacom portrays itself as fun, yet

slightly arrogant, instead of as responsible and concerned for the well being of their

customers.

4.1.2 ‘Art vs. Science’: Strategy and Creativity in an Advertising Context

In their discussion of semiotics in an advertising context in their book

Persuasive Signs: the Semiotics of Advertising, Beasley and Danesi describe advertising as

a combination of ‘art’ (aesthetic techniques) and ‘science (market research) used to

successfully market a product or service, as reflected in the modern day division of

creative and strategic departments within advertising agencies. Art, or “aesthetic

techniques” generally denotes the visual aspect of an advertising campaign: a

combination and manipulation of various visual symbols used to entertain the viewer in

order to sustain their attention. By contrast, “science” refers to the research employed

to market this ‘entertainment’ to the right individuals and to ensure, or at least attempt

to ensure, that it has an effect on its viewers.

Keeping this in mind, an important factor that emerged during the

85

documentation of the campaign, was the shift from Mo as a character advertising the

Vodafone Live! portal to Mo being inaugurated as the Vodacom’s brand mascot, without

having been intended for this role at inception. This shift meant the following:

-‐ The strategy conceived for Mo as an embodiment of entertainment coming alive on

consumer’s mobile phones, aimed at the portal’s fairly limited target market (white

males between the ages of 19-‐34 years, matric minimum qualification, LSM 7-‐10) fell

away and that Mo, as a character, became a representative of Vodacom as a whole,

targeted at their consumer base of almost three million people from all walks of South

Africa.

-‐ Mo took on a different role and was transformed from an ‘embodiment’ of

entertainment coming to life on consumers’ mobile phones via Vodafone Live! portal, to

Vodacom’s brand mascot. This meant that Mo had to be adapted from a somewhat

grotesque and disconcerting character to a popular and stylish one.

-‐ That the purpose of the commercials changed from specifically advertising what the

Vodafone live! portal had to offer to simply being an extravagant, seemingly purposeless

display of Vodacom as a whole with no direct link to any product or service.

Regardless of these changes, as established during documentation of the

campaign, the Mo the Meerkat campaign was extremely successful from the perspective

of consumer perceptions even though the campaign did not win any creative awards

and was generally disliked by industry professionals. Thus, even though consumers

loved Vodacom advertising, the key brand attribute that Mo the Meerkat was associated

with was fun: Mo was seen as an easy-‐going, fun-‐loving bachelor. This resulted in

Vodacom becoming a ‘cool and fun’ and slightly arrogant brand, but not necessarily a

86

brand which was empathetic and that cared for the well-‐being of their customers and

the service they received (Doherty 4). Once Vodacom wanted to show that they

understood and cared for their customers and that they connected with them on a more

responsible level (Doherty 4) they could no longer use Mo as a mascot.

This shows the importance of using a combination of creative instincts and

strategy (which includes research) in an advertising campaign, as well as the

importance of planning the campaign in advance, as the lack of such consideration

resulted in Vodacom no longer being able to use Mo as a brand mascot. What it also

shows, is that an animated character was not chosen, in this instance, as a result of

careful consideration of what the character, through character performance and

personality, could achieve for branding purposes, but was chosen quite spontaneously.

According to Brett Morris, chief creative officer of Draftfcb at the time of the

campaign, an animated character was chosen simply because it fulfilled the brief given

to them by Vodafone Live! to create a scenario where entertainment comes to the

consumer ‘from another world’, and an animated character in a live-‐action scene was

ideal to symbolise this ‘other world’ (Morris 4). Additionally, of course, the scenario

presented in the Vodafone live! commercial would have been physically impossible with

live-‐action.

4.1.3 Audience Reception

The following observations can be made from the Millward Brown ratings and

likeability scores listed in Table 1:

-‐ Meerkat Conga Line was the most popular advertisement of the campaign in both LSM

87

categories. It was voted the number 1 advertisement for the year 2005 in the LSM 5-‐7

category, with a likeability score of 9.4 out of 10. It was voted the number three

commercial of 2005 in the LSM 8-‐10 category, with a likeability score of 8.6 out of 10.

Even though Meerkat Whip was voted the second-‐most favourite commercial of 2006 it

only achieved a likeability score of 8.3.

-‐ Meerkat Conga Line was more popular than Meerkat Stripper despite the fact that

Meerkat Stripper was the first commercial featuring Mo and pre-‐dated the Meerkat

Conga Line commercial.

-‐ Can’t Touch This rated significantly lower than Meerkat Conga Line (it slumped from

position one to ten in LSM A and from 3 to not in top twenty in LSM B) despite the

improvements to the character design and performance in this commercial by Black

Ginger.

-‐ Rollerskate Mambo made a sudden come back in the LSM 5-‐7 category and was rated

the number one commercial of 2007 in that category.

The slump in ratings towards the end of campaign suggests that the popularity of

this commercial with audiences was most driven by novelty: the more unfamiliar and

unusual the commercial is the better. However, two exceptions to this finding were

noted in this instance. The first finding was that Meerkat Conga Line was ranked higher

than Meerkat Stripper. This can possibly be attributed to the fact that viewers

recognised Mo from Meerkat Stripper and because viewers prefer a ‘hero’ type

character to a controversial and grotesque one. Rollerskate Mambo proved to be the

second exception to this finding in the lower LSM category. This can be attributed to the

overall visual impressiveness of this commercial. The structure of the commercial was

88

almost completely gag driven, design improvements made Mo’s face the most appealing

yet (see Figure 1-‐3) and his performance was expressive, fluid and elastic.

These findings also show that Mo and the campaign’s popularity were not affected

by the quality of the narrative each commercial displayed. Meerkat Conga Line achieved

a higher ranking than Meerkat Stripper despite the fact the Meerkat Conga Line lacked a

convincing and humorous narrative. Findings also showed that ratings were not

affected by any critical evaluation of the character design or performance. Meerkat

Conga Line was rated higher than Can’t Touch This despite the improvements made to

Mo’s character design and his performance from this commercial onwards by Black

Ginger.

These observations and conclusions reflect the concerns raised by Benjamin and

Harvey about the general public as ‘absent-‐minded’ and oblivious critics, as was

highlighted in the discussion on this matter in chapter one (Benjamin 222). Harvey

finds “unstable interpretations” (51) of cultural productions (such as advertising) by

the general public to be problematic, because these interpretations are not based on

educated, informed, and constructive evaluations of the subject matter. This is also the

case with the campaign at hand, as ratings are most affected by frivolous factors such as

novelty, social standing of the main character and the visual impressiveness of the

commercials as a whole. Ratings were not affected by constructive and informed

evaluations such as the improvements made to the character design and performance.

An important factor that needs to be mentioned at this point is that the campaign

was successful from a consumer vote perspective but did not win any creative awards,

indicating that critics from creative backgrounds did not consider the campaign a

success. Brett Morris, the chief creative officer of Draftfcb, noted that he considered

89

consumer popularity to be the deciding factor in the success of a campaign (Morris 10).

This may be a valid judgement from a financial point of view, as a campaign that is

popular amongst audiences does, in theory, leads to increased sales, which is the

purpose of most advertising and will the keep clients of advertising agencies satisfied.

This evaluation indicates that the cultural producer has less authority in

contemporary society than the consumer or general public does, as the creative vote is

no longer considered the ultimate truth or deciding factor as far as success of a

campaign is concerned. This phenomenon was raised by Harvey’s in his discussion of

postmodernism as an alternate way of thinking with regard to language and

communication, as was referred to in chapter one. Harvey notes that a text and words

never exist in isolation, but rely on references to other words and texts to make

meaning. Because these references are governed by the personal interpretations of

individuals, the reader, not the author, is in control of the meaning made. Ultimately,

this means that the public (the reader) has a greater impact in determining cultural

values than the cultural producer (the author) does.

Thus, audience ratings show that consumers remain oblivious of or unaffected by

Mo’s flaws and the flaws of the campaign as a whole from a creative perspective. Ratings

also showed that the general public took the most notice of novelty and visual

impressiveness rather than excellence on a narrative level and in creating an unique

character.

4.1.4 Re-‐contextualisation and the Spectacle

Thus far the following can be noted and concluded from the documentation and

analysis of the campaign:

90

-‐ Analysis revealed that even though Mo as a character as well as his performance was

visually impressive (and gag driven) his personality was superficial and not necessarily

impressive from a moral perspective (in other words, he is a pompous show-‐off).

-‐ Mo as a signifier draws non-‐functional signification. This is because Mo as a character

did not generate functional and meaningful signification on a latent level and because

the differing personas he displays can not be consolidated conceptually.

-‐ Documentation and analysis of the campaign revealed that Mo the Meerkat, as a

character, was not ideal for developing Vodacom’s brand identity. This was because Mo

portrayed the brand as fun and ‘cool’ rather than responsible and caring, which

ultimately resulted in the campaign being ended. However, Mo as a character, did

contribute to successfully improving brand recognition and popularity. This allows us to

conclude that an animated character, in this instance, was not chosen for brand building

purposes, but was instead chosen for its potential to represent ‘another world’ as was

required for the initial brief by Vodacom, on behalf of Vodafone.

-‐ Ratings show that consumers and viewers were most impressed by novelty, visual

grandeur and preferred a ‘cool’ and pompous, superficial character over grotesque yet

conceptually stable one.

This reveals that Mo as a character was functional purely on a visual level, that

he was most suited for promoting brand recognition and that he was conceived in an

attempt to represent the surreal and impossible (‘another world’ according to Brett

Morris). Mo was also not ideal for brand building due to his superficial and grandiose

personality which conveyed negative brand attributes. He also did not generate

functional signification on a conceptual level and, as ratings suggest, was most popular

91

due to the novelty he initially displayed and the aesthetically pleasing visual displays

the commercials presented.

These factors suggest that Mo the Meerkat, as an animated character, was chosen

as a ‘spectacle’. A spectacle is something exciting and entertaining, something that will

attract audience’s attention to the advertisement. This may take the form of special

effects, unusual animated characters or eye-‐catching visuals. The concept of the

spectacle in advertising was discussed in chapter one based on the findings of Michael

Herbst and Andrew Darley. Herbst identified the practise in contemporary advertising

of manipulating the different elements of a sign (the signifier and the signified) and

combining them with other signs to “attract, intrigue and impress” the viewer (Herbst

18). The same practise can be noted in the Vodacom Mo the Meerkat campaign as will be

demonstrated below.

Because there is no sequential link between the signifier and signified presented

or supported in the narrative of the commercials it is possible for advertisers to take

signs out of their original context to create entertaining scenarios. Advertisers rely on

the culture-‐specific and subjective logic of viewers to make this connection and this

subjectivity, rather than logic, allows for nonsensical and implausible scenarios. For

example, as can be demonstrated with the Meerkat Stripper commercial, Mo as a sign is

taken out of its common context: he looks like a meerkat but is shown in an urban,

indoor environment (rather the desert or the bush were people would expect to find

meerkats) and he definitely does not behave like a meerkat but behaves like a human

(by performing sleazy dance moves and pulling his skin off). By combining two

signifieds (a meerkat, the wild animal, and a male stripper) and combining this with

interesting narrative, the situation that is created is slightly disconcerting and

92

grotesque but is never the less intriguing and humorous. Further more, even though

this scenario is nonsensical and impossible (logic would suggest that animals can not

strip because they are ‘naked’ to begin with) it is still entertaining.

Darley notes the preoccupation with the signifier at the expense of signification,

in contemporary advertising, which leads to the generation of non-‐functional and

arbitrary meanings which are attached to signifiers (Darley 83). This practise, according

to Darley, is the result of such advertising ‘spectacles’. The problem of Mo as a signifier

generating non-‐functional signification was one of the factors noted during the analysis

of the campaign.

In each commercial, Mo as a signifier, draws reference to a meerkat as well as

which ever human persona is relevant (be it a male stripper, a holiday maker or party

starter, a Hip Hop dancer, a beach-‐bum, a roller skater or lifeguard). However,

signification starts to become problematic from Meerkat Conga Line onwards. This is

because Mo as a signifier automatically also draws reference to the identity created for

Mo as a sleazy, stripping meerkat, because this is what viewers came to know him as

first. Because connotations generated from Mo’s performance in Meerkat Stripper (he is

clumsy, sleazy and grotesque) clash with those created by his subsequent performances

(he is popular and stylish) these differing personas can not be consolidated deeming the

signification non-‐functional and is to some extent arbitrary.

Therefore, it can be concluded, that an animated character was used in this

instance, as a ‘spectacle’, something which would attract viewer’s attentions and

impress and intrigue them for long enough to see the Vodacom logo and thus promote

brand recognition. Rita Doherty describes successful advertising as being able to

captivate consumers’ attention and give them an immediate sense of what the brand is

93

about (Doherty 8). This is exactly what the Mo the Meerkat character was able to do, yet

unfortunately the connotations the brand generated via Mo the Meerkat were superficial

and not very constructive in a brand development sense.

4.2 In Conclusion

Documentation and analysis of the campaign revealed that this campaign

was an example of Vodacom’s populist advertising style at the time, which did not rely

on strategy or carefully considered scenarios or ideas to market their brand. However,

findings also indicated the need for what Beasly and Danesi term the “scientific

enterprise” (103) of contemporary advertising, in other words, strategic thinking, as the

lack of such strategic thinking and planning was to the detriment of Vodacom’s brand

identity. This is because Mo as a character generated brand attributes relating to fun

and popularity, rather than portraying the brand as responsible and empathetic, which

was the main consideration behind the campaign coming to an end.

Thus, these findings confirm Beasly and Danesi’s notion that advertising should

consist of the correct balance between ‘art’ and ‘science’ or creativity and market

research as discussed in chapter one (Beasley & Danesi 2). However, with this in mind,

it becomes important to mention at this point that this campaign also disproves these

findings to some degree. This ‘science’ of advertising, according to Beasly and Danesi,

also includes market research and the definition of a ‘target audience’ (Beasley and

Danesi 132). This campaign, however, was popular across all market segments despite

the fact that it was originally intended for only a small target audience, which suggests

that defining a target audience was not essential in this case. This campaign, however,

may have been an exception to the rule.

94

Analysis of the campaign has highlighted the importance of developing brand

identity, not only from a strategic perspective, but also from a semiotic stand point.

Judith Williamson’ s guide to semiotics in an advertising context as presented in her text

Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising, as discussed in chapter

one, has also proven valuable to the analysis of this campaign. Williamson notes that the

brand identity of a certain product or service being advertised functions on two levels:

an ‘overt’ or superficial level, and a ‘latent’ level which generates meaning through

connotations suggested in the ‘overt’ level (Williamson 19). This approach to semiotic

analysis of the brand identity has proven essential in establishing that Mo as a Character

is visually impressive on an overt level but does not generate functional signification on

a latent level. This finding contributed to the conclusion that Mo the Meerkat as an

animated character was chosen as a ‘spectacle’ not as a character with personality.

The Mo the Meerkat campaign, similar to the Yebo Gogo campaign, starts off with

one good idea which is then subsequently re-‐used and re-‐contextualised. This may

partially be due to the nature of the product being advertised: a telecommunications

service, which does not carry any distinctive characteristics in itself, and thus any

advertisement for Vodacom could easily have been applied to their competitors and

vice versa.

This factor may have contributed to the fact that Mo the Meerkat did not become

Vodacom’s character as such (similar to how ‘Snap, Crackle and Pop’ have become

characters which are an essential part of the Kelloggs’ brand identity), but rather a

character that starred in Vodacom advertising. This highlights another important

finding that emerged during the documentation and analysis of the campaign: the use of

animation. Animation in this instance, was used simply as a ‘spectacle’ rather than for

95

the potential it presented for brand building through character performance and story.

This means that animation was not used to its full potential but simply as a

gimmick. This use of animation based entirely on its visual value echoes the changing

function of the artwork in contemporary society which Walter Benjamin describes in

his work The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, as discussed in chapter

one. Benjamin notes that the value of an artwork is determined by its “exhibition value’”

(220), in other words, the value that it generates based on its ability to be exhibited and

viewed, rather than simply based on its existence as is true in a cultural environment

(Benjamin 221). This concept of the ‘exhibition value’ as indentified by Benjamin has

proven useful in identifying the same trend in the Mo the Meerkat campaign, with an

animated character being used as a ‘spectacle’.

Mo the Meerkat, as a ‘spectacle’, was highly successful from a consumer vote

perspective, but was not bestowed the same honour from creative and animation

circles. This finding echoes what David Harvey highlights regarding cultural producers

in his text The Condition of Postmodernity, as discussed in chapter one. Harvey notes the

that the cultural producer has much less authority as in previous times, as his word is

no longer considered the ultimate truth (Harvey 49). This finding has proven to be

highly relevant to the campaign as it is echoed in this advertising context. The Mo the

Meerkat campaign showed that consumer vote and brand recognition in advertising (as

this is what is translated into sales and revenue) is what is considered an unwritten

‘law’ in an advertising industry.

However, this ‘law’ is what in this case sacrificed the quality of the animation

production. This presents a conflict of interest of sorts and makes it difficult to term the

campaign an overall success as it did not successfully combine advertising and

96

animation. This is because the campaign did not give rise to a unique, thinking character

which audiences could relate to and that would have contributed to developing

Vodacom’s brand identity. Regardless of these shortcomings, the campaign did

contribute to the South African animation and advertising industries in various ways.

The campaign introduced motion capture as a viable production technique in

South Africa, as motion capture had thus far not been used for advertising purposes.

Further, the campaign also gave film directors such as Peter Pohorsky and Bruce

Paynter the opportunity to ‘direct’ an animated character and to manage a project that

demanded the combination of an animated character with a live action environment.

From an advertising perspective, the campaign gave Draftfcb insight into what

animation production and character development entails. Thus, even though this

campaign was not successful from a creative vote perspective, and despite the fact that

the Mo the Meerkat character was not ideal conceptually, the campaign did provide the

South African advertising industry with experience to draw from for future animated

character.

Rachel Andreotti Interview

1

Appendix A

Interview Transcripts

Rachel Andreotti


Campaign: Vodacom’s Mo the Meerkat Campaign, 2005-‐2007

Interview Transcript

Interviewer: Kim Hoffmann

Interviewee: Rachel Andreotti

Date: 18/05/2010

26/11/2010

Place: Rachel Andreotti’s Office

Draft FCB Johannesburg

Pin Mill Farm

164 Katherine Street

Sandton

Johannesburg

South Africa

18 May 2010


2

Persons Present: Kim Hoffmann

Rachel Andreotti

HOFFMANN: At this point I am still trying to set the scope of my research, as I still have

to pitch my project to the faculty. My topic, in essence, is looking at the relationship

between advertising and animation in South Africa. So I’m looking at the Meerkat

campaign as a model or case study of this relationship and trying to establish why you

used an animated character?

ANDREOTTI: I will be honest with you I was not really involved in the strategy, but it

was for Vodafone live!, it was the first time Vodafone live was launched in South Africa,

if I remember well, you could actually even access things like porn.

HOFFMANN: Oh really?

ANDREOTTI: And that’s why they came up with a Stripping Meerkat. Ok, I’m not a 100

percent sure, I stand to be corrected. I can find out for you though.

HOFFMANN: I’m sure I’ll find out.

ANDREOTTI: So, as I say, I don’t know what the strategy really was behind it, but you

could access a million things. And the creative’s came up with this idea that it actually

first of all was going to be a stripping dog.

HOFFMANN: Oh, ok.

ANDREOTTI: And then somebody said, I don’t know if it was the client, no let’s make it

something more South African. He wanted something like a Meerkat, something more


3

South African. So the Meerkat came about. But it was going to be a stripping dog. It was

only supposed to be for that one campaign, for Vodafone live!, the launch. I don’t know if

you remember it?

HOFFMANN: I remember the ads.

ANDREOTTI: And what happened was, you know, the client didn’t really realize that

there are serious time restrictions if you do animation. There’s not a quick turn around

time. Especially the rendering time takes so long, you would know what I’m talking

about. We came up with this Meerkat, it was rushed, it was live-‐action combined with

animation.

HOFFMANN: Yes they used motion capture?

ANDREOTTI: Apart from the motion capture, the actual plates and the backgrounds and

the things like that. Like the cushion being thrown and the clothes being thrown and the

vases coming down. I don’t know how familiar you are with that?

HOFFMANN: I remember it vaguely.

ANDREOTTI: Ok, so as I say, we had to shoot the plates, then we shot live animation, ag

motion capture. And in those days there was only one company that pitched themselves

to us and that was Werner, I don’t know what Werner’s surname is, but it was called

AnimMate!. Do you know them?

HOFFMANN: Yes, they’re still around.

ANDREOTTI: And Werner came to us and said he’s got motion capture and we did it, we

got this dancer, who did it for us. And it was the first time ever that they used motion

capture for any commercial as far as I know. And what happened was because it was


4

like very rushed, we actually presented to the client and he said he didn’t like it, its

scary, children are going to scare. So we changed it, and I don’t think it was the ideal

Meerkat we wanted because not a lot of people realised it was a Meerkat. But we had to

quickly change it to make it a more friendly character, because of time constraints and

everything. And, as you know, that ad went down a storm, to such an extent, that the

client insisted, that it become one of his icons. Vodacom always have their icons. It was

first Bankole and Michael de Pinna, the guy in the leopard print

HOFFMANN: Oh, yes, and the Yebo Goggo man.

ANDREOTTI: That’s right, the Yebo Goggo man and his mate. So, as I say, he liked the

icons and all of a sudden, we in a way, forced into the Meerkat campaign, because it was

only specifically for that launch of Vodafone live!

HOFFMANN: I heard there were calls to change the character design?

ANDREOTTI: Yes, what happened, I think that was from a creative point of view, not

from the client’s point of view. So what happened was, I think Werner even did the

second one, I can’t remember how many he did. And then they wanted, the creative’s

felt, what happened was, because we always had to combine live-‐action with animation,

and the director felt, that had shot the first one, Peter Pohorsky, that it takes too much

of his time, to sit there, he wanted to shoot in camera stuff. He was not interested in

animation. It was too slow for him. So he didn’t want to shoot the second one. So the

second one we had to move to another director, and then eventually we got locked in

with the director that became the director on all our shoots, Bruce Paynter. He felt that

the motion capture was limiting,

HOFFMANN: Yes, you should ideally combine motion capture with hand animation.


5

ANDREOTTI: As I say, it came from the director’s side, and then they wanted to move it

away from Werner, because Werner was more on the motion capture side. Then it went

to a company called Black Ginger. Do you know them?

HOFFMANN: Yes, I do.

ANDREOTTI: Have you ever spoken to them.

HOFFMANN: They are on my list, but not yet.

ANDREOTTI: To Hilton. They based in Cape Town. But they eventually opened a branch

here, especially to work on Meerkat.

HOFFMANN: So the subsequent ad’s used no motion capture at all

ANDREOTTI: No motion capture. It was all animation.

HOFFMANN: But animation is even more time consuming than motion capture?

ANDREOTTI: Yes, it is. But they felt that, I don’t know if they could bring more humour

about with real animation. That’s were I fall short, that’s more creative. I’m just on the

production side.

HOFFMANN: Yes, I’ve made an appointment with Brett.

ANDREOTTI: Oh, ok. So as I say, he was involved, unfortunately both the other guys that

worked on it, Gerhard Myburgh and what’s his name, can’t remember his name, they

immigrated. They’re in Australia. I can give you Gerhard's number, he will help you. He

was very involved.

HOFFMANN: Maybe I can email him?

ANDREOTTI: Yes.


6

HOFFMANN: Ok, that would be great.

ANDREOTTI: He was really the creative involved in the end. He started from the second

one. The first one was probably still Brett, no it was not Brett, and it was Mike Barnwell.

He’s immigrated also to Australia. But Gerhard definitely, he was involved from the

second one. He was the creative on everyone right through. And then we gave it to

Bruce Paynter and Black Ginger did the animation for us. And then it evolved from

there. Then we introduced Moitia.

HOFFMANN: The female Meerkat?.

ANDREOTTI: Because the Meerkat was called Mo and the girlfriend was Moitia.

HOFFMANN: I didn’t even notice the connection in the names.

ANDREOTTI: Yes, they even had names. As I say it moved, we didn’t take the wireframes

across because obviously those were intellectual property from AnimMate!

HOFFMANN: So they had to remodel it?

ANDREOTTI: Yes. So they didn’t part with their wireframes.

HOFFMANN: Were there hard feelings from AnimMate!’s side?

ANDREOTTI: Ag, you know, if you know Werner you’ll know he’s just the nicest guy

under the sun. He did feel a bit hard done by. He never showed it.

HOFFMANN: It’s business?

ANDREOTTI: Yes. So it’s not because we felt he did a bad job. In fact, he did such a good

job that it became an iconic character for Vodacom after that. So as I say, obviously you

loose business and if you loose something you always feel hard done. If we loose an


7

account we also feel a bit hard done by. But the reason was that the director who

became involved wanted to go pure animation.

HOFFMANN: And as far as target audience goes, what target market were you aiming

at?

ANDREOTTI: You know, as I say, because I’m only on the production side, I don’t really

know. All I know, having worked on Vodacom for so long, probably across all ages. And

it entertained everybody.

HOFFMANN: And it got very good ratings?

ANDREOTTI: Fantastic ratings. Rita should be able to help you with that.

HOFFMANN: Apparently she is also overseas but I will be speaking to her.

ANDREOTTI: She should be able to help you because in those days she was on the

strategic side.


8

26 November 2010


Rachel Andreotti

HOFFMANN: I think I’ve got the basic facts down, I just want to ask you some specific

questions and more opinion based ones.

ANDREOTTI: Ok.

HOFFMANN: But then also, one thing I haven’t been able to establish is the dates when

each commercial aired? Roughly maybe just the month and year? Do you keep that on

record?

ANDREOTTI: I don’t, but you know what, it won’t be under renewable’s because there

where no actors in it. Are you talking about the first one, the stripper?

HOFFMANN: No, I’m just looking for a rough date for each commercial

ANDREOTTI: For each commercial?

HOFFMANN: Yes.

ANDREOTTI: You know who would be able to do that is Edna, now she’s not here.

Remember I called Edna last time?

HOFFMANN: Yes, I remember.

ANDREOTTI: She would have those dates. Can I ask her to, she’s taken the day off today,

HOFFMANN: If you give me her e-‐mail address I’ll mail her?


9

ANDREOTTI: It’s edna dot brunido at draftfcb dot co dot za.

HOFFMANN: Thanks. And then also, why did they, I don’t know if it was Draft FCB or

Vodafone, but why did they choose AnimMate! initially? Where they looking to use

motion capture specifically?

ANDREOTTI: Yes, I think, we were sold on the motion capture idea.

HOFFMANN: Why motion capture? Did you consider the two? Did you consider other,

traditional animation companies? Or did you specifically want to use motion capture?

ANDREOTTI: You ask me now to thing back very far,.

HOFFMANN: Sorry.

ANDREOTTI: Um, I remember what happened. It was not us, it was Peter Pohorsky, who

shot the first one. From Plank.

HOFFMANN: Ok, so you approached them?

ANDREOTTI: Plank Productions, as a director, because it was live footage with the

Meerkat dancing in between. So we approached them to shoot the commercial. And they

went to AnimMate!

HOFFMANN: Oh, ok, that makes sense.

ANDREOTTI: When they pitched, I can’t remember where they pitched again, but we

probably called in three production houses, and said here’s the idea, come back. And in

part of their treatment, when they came back to pitch to us, they said: “Listen, these

guys called AnimMate!, they’ve got this motion capture thing, it’ll look like real dance

moves and whatever the case is and we were very much sold on that, we quite liked it. It


10

was new,

HOFFMANN: It was quite new in South Africa at the time. So then, after the first two

commercials did you approach CAB films because you wee unhappy with what

AnimMate! did?

ANDREOTTI: No, what happened was, Peter Pohorsky shot the first one, and because

he’s a live footage person, he shoots stuff on camera, it’s a very long process, animation,

as you know, and he wanted to be involved right to the end. It kept, him out of the loop

to shoot other commercials, because he was so involved in the postproduction on this

commercial. So when the second one came up we asked him to shoot it and he said, he

doesn’t want to do the animation. He’s far more into live stuff, it’s not that it was a bad

experience, he just doesn’t want to be involved.

HOFFMANN: Ok, I see.

ANDREOTTI: It didn’t go straight to CAB, the second one was shot by a guy called

Jeremy Goodall.

HOFFMANN: Still at Plank Films?

ANDREOTTI: No, it was not Plank, it was shot by Jeremy Goodall but we used

AnimMate! for the animation. The motion capture again. And then I then I think by the

third one. You see, each time it’s the creative’s prerogative to choose a different

director, if they want to. I cant remember if Jeremy was not available, for the third one,

what the reason was, or if the creative director thought he needed to give it to someone

else, if it was a different creative working on it. Then it went to CAB films. And then CAB

Films said, ok fine, it was the moment it moved from, I think there were two shot

already, and the third one came up, that they said ok fine, they don’t like the motion


11

capture.

HOFFMANN: Ok, so they pulled out?

ANDREOTTI: It was Bruce Paynter.

HOFFMANN: Yes, I spoke to him. I was just wondering if you, or Vodacom were unhappy

with the work that had been done?

ANDREOTTI: No, not at all. It was like kind of a new director and he had a new take on

it. He said he far more preferred the over exaggerated movements of real animation,

opposed to the real movements of motion capture.

HOFFMANN: Makes sense.

ANDREOTTI: And we indulged him, basically. And we said if you’re the director, we’ll

indulge you. And that’s when it went to Black Ginger. Because they felt they preferred

them, as a supplier because they were also in Cape Town and CAB were in Cape Town

and the guy didn’t have to sit up here for a whole month being involved in the post, he

could pop in every single day at Black Ginger. That was part of the reason.

HOFFMANN: I asked Hilton who did the initial character design and he said he wasn’t

sure if it was AnimMate! or if it was Draft FCB? Who did the concept sketches and the

initial character design for the Meerkat?

ANDREOTTI: It was probably, it was a combination of a guy called Mike Barnwell, who

was the creative on the job at that stage, he worked for Draft FCB, Peter Pohorsky, who

was the director on the first commercial, and the guys at AnimMate!

HOFFMANN: So it was collaboration?


12

ANDREOTTI: It was a combined thing, yes.

HOFFMANN: Did Vodafone have anything to do with the Meerkat being canned after

they took over the majority share holding?

ANDREOTTI: No, it had absolutely nothing to do with it. They, still until today, allow us

nothing, none of our commercials get approved by Vodafone.

HOFFMANN: So the decisions were still made by Vodacom?

ANDREOTTI: Yes, still today, if we do a commercial today, whatever we do. The first

one, we had to show them, purely because it was for Vodafone live! because we used

their name in the commercial, we used the Vodafone live logo. So we had to show them

as a courtesy. But none of our commercials get approved by Vodafone.

HOFFMANN: So they don’t have a say in it?

ANDREOTTI: No.

HOFFMANN: Do you have any theories to explain the Meerkat’s popularity? Everybody’s

been telling me that what was so amazing is that it appealed to so many people and

generally you don’t manage to do that? As an advertiser do you have any theories

behind that?

ANDREOTTI: As a producer I have but they can probably, if you ask Edna about that,

because they did Millward Brown studies. She will have access to those Millward Brown

studies, which will actually point out to you exactly, where they probe the people and

ask them why it is that they liked it. Edna will be able to give it to you. But it is true that

it was likeable across the board. From children, to adults, to old people, across all races.

HOFFMANN: And generally you can’t appeal to everyone?


13

ANDREOTTI: From that point of view but Edna will be able to give you those insights.

HOFFMANN: If I contact Millward Brown directly would they give it to me? Or is it

confidential?

ANDREOTTI: They would probably not give it to you because they are contracted by us

to do it.

HOFFMANN: Ok, thanks. And then, why do you think Mo didn’t win any creative

awards? There seems to be a big gap between the consumer and creative’s opinion?

ANDREOTTI: Very much so. It’s an industry thing; it’s very much that your peers are far

harsher judges than you. They look at different things than what the consumers look at.

They look at; it’s hard to say. I should probably take you to Grant Jacobsen to answer

that question.

HOFFMANN: Was there possibly any criticism about the first two ads?

ANDREOTTI: They probably did, have criticism, yes. It was not because of AnimMate!,

the second ad that we did, the Conga Line, there was far more criticism against the

second one that the first one.

HOFFMANN: Oh really?

ANDREOTTI: Yes, it wasn’t about the actual animation, it was more the concept.

HOFFMANN: Wasn’t the first one more shocking than the second one?

ANDREOTTI: Yes, but it wasn’t the shocking element, you know what I’m saying. Why

creative’s are so critical of their peers work remains a mystery.

Rita Doherty Interview

1

Rita Doherty





Interviewee: Rita Doherty

Date: 16/09/2010

Place: Fournos Bakery

The Zone of Rosebank

177 Oxford Street

Rosebank

Johannesburg

South Africa


2

16 September 2010


Rita Doherty

HOFFMANN: Was the Vodacom ‘Mo the Meerkat’ campaign Draft FCB’s first campaign

that made use of animation? Or are you the wrong person to ask?

DOHERTY: Yeah, I mean, the best person to ask would probably be Brett, Brett Morris,

he was there longer than me, as far as I know this is probably, this is certainly, our

principle one. If there was anything before it wasn’t anything significant.

HOFFMANN: And afterwards? Did the campaign change Draft FCB’s outlook as far as

animation is concerned? Did the campaign make an impact due to its success?

DOHERTY: I don’t think it stimulated any particular consciousness around animation.

Also, you know, Meerkat had a life of its own, so, it started off as something small, grew

massive in a kind of inadvertent way, and always had on the outskirts of it an enormous

amount of contention and dislike and I don’t think we fully, sort of, ever really engaged

with the idea of what we were doing we just rolled with it.

HOFFMANN: I guess that’s the way it goes.

DOHERTY: No, I don’t think a particular consciousness developed around animation it

was more just I think we, sort of, almost vowed not to do that again.

HOFFMANN: Really? That’s interesting? So it wasn’t along the lines of it went down

quite well lets try its again?


3

DOHERTY: It went down very, very well but you must understand the sort of

complexities around it was, it took the public by storm, so South African’s loved it and I

think what was also amazing about it is that it really sort of crossed all kind of race, age,

you know, but the creative industry hated it, hated it. So this thing grew and grew and

grew, and the people who loved it grew and the people who hated it grew. And I think

by the end there was kind of two paths available, one was kind of turn this into a Mickey

Mouse, franchise it, merchandise it, you know, create a whole story around it, go really,

really big. And the person who was in favour of that was the marketing director of

Vodacom at the time, Andre Beyers. And then there was a Facebook fan page of people

who hated Meerkat and people did their own animations of him being roasted, quite

bad. So that was the context, but ultimately the decision to can Meerkat was because it

was strategically incorrect. So what happened Meerkat was created as an icon of

Vodafone live! And he was the embodiment of new age entertainment come to life.

Vodacom loved it and took it as its own icon.

HOFFMANN: Was the first ad for Vodafone live! And thereafter it was Vodacom?

DOHERTY: Yes, it was designed for Vodafone live! That was the first one with the

Meerkat stripping, he was quite skanky and there where complaints, a lot of complaints.

One woman apparently phoned in to say his fingers where penis shaped and that

offended her. And, yes, what happened is that he became hugely successful: Vodacom,

which at the time had majority share holding, its now changed, Vodafone has now got,

and essentially they took the icon for themselves. And what started to come back after, I

think, about a year or two of it was that people loved the Vodacom advertising, far more

than they did any of the other brands, and that the kind of brand attributes that Meerkat

gave was a sense of fun and all of that. But what the other brands where building,


4

especially MTN, was not fun, but a sense of empathy and compassion. And Vodacom

started to become a brand that was really cool and fun, but it was not necessarily a

brand that cared for me.

HOFFMANN: So how long did this campaign run? I was under the impression that it was

only about a year?

DOHERTY: Meerkat ran from 2005 through to about 2007 or 2008, because there was

about 6 of them.

So eventually the decision to abandon Meerkat wasn’t driven around conversations

around the character or animation or anything like that, it was purely that, in the end,

Mo the Meerkat was this fun-‐loving bachelor who loved to have fun and everybody

thought Vodacom was a fun brand but the brand wanted to start showing that it

understood people, that it connected with them. And Meerkat just wasn’t that. That

vehicle.

HOFFMANN: So, I read on Vodacom’s website that they where targeting young people,

‘fun-‐loving’ people, that sort of thing?

DOHERTY: Yes, they call it the young at heart, which is just a marketing jargon.

HOFFMANN: So the target market was not necessarily age defined?

DOHERTY: No, Vodacom, like Coca-‐Cola, is a mass brand so the brand will always have

to have mass appeal.

HOFFMANN: So it wasn’t necessarily aimed at the youth?

DOHERTY: No, they say its not aimed at young people, but the young at heart.


5

HOFFMANN: And the target audience as far as race is concerned? Was it aimed at a

mixed-‐race target market?

DOHERTY: It wasn’t conscious. Meerkat did not come out of a strategy for the brand,

remember. It came out of a strategy for Vodafone live!. So you are not going to find a lot

of very careful thinking behind it, but what you will find are surprises on the effects. It

wasn’t consciously created to be any kind of transcendent character or anything like

that. The effect it did have was to be transcendent so while MTN was trying very

consciously to be new South African and Black and white Mo the Meerkat was just loved

by everyone.

HOFFMANN: So the character design for Mo the Meerkat was not created from a

creative rather than strategic point of view?

DOHERTY: Very much so. Vodacom as a culture has undergone a change. Under Alan

Knott-‐Craig and Andre Beyers, who were very much the guys who took Vodacom from

the start to about two years ago, it was a cowboy organisation. People had instincts,

they went with it and they loved the creative. Strategy was there to back rationalise to a

large degree. So a lot of the work that came out of there was work that connected to

people but was not necessarily the brand deciding how am I going to Since Vodafone

have become majority share holders you’ve had a change in culture now. And now you

have a much more strategic marketing led thing. Meerkat doesn’t come from there.

HOFFMANN: Vodacom’s previous campaigns had made use of a black icon, the ‘Yebo

Goggo’ man (Bankole Omotso) as well as a white one, Michael de Pinna, was Vodacom

using an animated character not to align themselves with a particular race group?

DOHERTY: Not consciously, but that was the effect. And that was one of the things I


6

found fascinating: There was a lot of debate at the time around the fact that MTN was

more black and Vodacom was more white. And there was a lot of criticism around;

initially the view was that Meerkat would perpetuate that. So it was quite a surprise

when the measurement of it was, I don’t know if you have heard of Millward Brown?

HOFFMANN: I’ve heard the name.

DOHERTY: Millward Brown is just a research agency and what they do is they measure

liking, how much people like ads. They now just release one list a year, but up until

about two years ago they had two lists, one with what they called the developed market,

which is sort of upper and middle class, and your developing market which is sort of

working class. And Meerkat scored top on both. It was the first, as far as I know, I could

be wrong; it was certainly one of the first that spanned both. And the nice thing for me is

the way in which it showed that connecting with South Africans, certainly on that fun

level, you don’t have to stick with identity politics. So for me it was quite nice because it

was a ways of escaping the very narrow ways in which people thought of connecting

with different races in South Africa. It was like, if you want to connect with black people

then you must have black people in your ad, and do certain things, and if you want to

connect so for me the love there surprise Meerkat was to show that you can transcend

all those things, certainly on an entertainment level. I don’t know of animation

characters, I haven’t thought of their context on a broader, more serious level, but on a

fun level.

HOFFMANN: So that brings me to my next question of why an animated character was

chosen? Again out of coinscidence?

DOHERTY: I think Brett would probably be the best person to answer that because I


7

wasn’t actually at FCB when Meerkat was born. My feeling was that it was, once again,

that it was not a strategic thing. It wasn’t like we are going to do an animated character

because this and that, I can imagine the idea was around entertainment coming alive on

your phone. Now it seems kind of cheesy but at the time was the launch of the Vodafone

live! Portal. It was the beginning of the interactivity enriched media phones. So I think

the idea was to bring some kind of character from the other world into our world. Why

it ended up being a Meerkat it was a crazy way of people thinking.

HOFFMANN: So none of the campaign was based on target market surveys?

DOHERTY: The one thing for me, that intrigued me enormously was, I hadn’t see

Meerkat yet, when it first launched I was working at Herdboys, another agency, and a

young intern with me, Dikaledi, she was the one who told me about it. She said: “Have

you seen the new Vodacom ad?” I was like: “no”. She said it was amazing, when her

mom saw it she burst out crying. Obviously that’s a most unusual response. It has

always intrigued me why there was this huge, huge sense of kind of excitement, beyond

excitement, for some reason this bizarre little rat, mouse, monkey, as different people

called it, certainly had a massive connection and I have absolutely no grounding in this,

it feels to me, there was a sense of, from an African perspective there was just a sense of,

I don’t know, its almost like animation came from the US, that it was about other

people’s worlds. Meerkat was almost our first explosion of an African character. That’s

the only answer I have to explain why like black, old women would burst out crying

when she saw it, otherwise it seems utterly bizarre.

HOFFMANN: Are you familiar with the reception on a more formal level? I came across a

mention of a Generation Next Survey by the Sunday Times?


8

DOHERTY: Yes, it was hugely, hugely successful in any kind of consumer vote. And also

very, very successful from a business perspective. And disastrous from a creative award

perspective, Meerkat won nothing in terms of Louries, Cannes, nothing. In fact, there

came a time where the creators of Meerkat just wanted to hide because they were

ripped off so much. It also shows how dysfunctional aspects of the whole Awards

System is. So in terms of consumers, Millward Browns most liked ads, many of them

were the most liked ads of the year, the Generation Next Awards which is the youth

awards and then from a business perspective it won the Sunday Times’ Business Times

Marketing Excellence Grand Prix in 2006 or 2007 at that was literally a case study we

put together to demonstrate how Meerkat had radically lifted the brand equity certainly

in the earlier years. And of the big things I think it did was very spontaneous

differentiation. If you walked into, if you just think of signage, you would have the logos

MTN, and Cell C and they are kind of very conventional and expected, and then there

was Mo and he was just the first thing. So from a pure just you know advertising is kind

of being able to grab your attention and give you a strong, immediate sense of brand

and Meerkat was exceptionally good. The characters generally do that. If you think of

other characters in South Africa, they’re not necessarily animated. On Toyota now we

have Buddy the Dog, Castrol it was Boet and Swaer that might have been before your

time. Characters have the very powerful sense of taking a lot of rich character elements

and putting them in a very small icon that people can have a very strong relationship

with. That’s the power of using characters. The negative side is that you create very

simple stereotypes, once again, so it’s a kind of balance between the two.

HOFFMANN: Christo mentioned that you compiled a report on the campaign was that

what you were referring to earlier?


9

DOHERTY: Yes, it was the case study for the marketing excellence report. I’m just trying

to think why I did it. I was head of strategy at the time so I was responsible for putting

together some case study.

HOFFMANN: So the case study in question was requested by Vodacom?

DOHERTY: No, that case study was an award case study, put together for the marketing

excellence award. I think the reason I wrote it at the time was because we were sort of

between strategists so I just filled in. Then we got a strategist on the business who

absolutely hated Meerkat with absolute passion. I would say he was certainly not

responsible, but was part of the reason why we abandoned Meerkat.

HOFFMANN: What was your involvement in the campaign?

DOHERTY: Nothing directly, I’m strategy director so I oversaw the department and then

we had specific strategists who worked on individual pieces of business. So I was never

the Vodacom strategist.

HOFFMANN: Does FCB handle the entire Vodacom account? Are you familiar with their

general strategy or does the strategy change from campaign to campaign depending on

what they were trying to achieve?

DOHERTY: At that time yes. As I’ve already said there has been quite a big shift in the

past two years. Vodafone culture is now coming in and Vodafone culture is much more

about planning and 3 year strategies. So now we have a brand idea and a campaign that

builds towards it. But at the time it was cowboy marketing.

HOFFMANN: If it worked, it worked, if it didn’t, it didn’t?

DOHERTY: Yes. Alan Knott-‐Craig who headed up Vodacom had an incredibly strong


10

instinct for popular culture and what would make people like you. So Vodacom always

spent a lot on music, so part of Meerkat’s success was very, very expensive, you pay an

enormous amount of money to use popular soundtracks. Alan Knott-‐Craig’s thing was if

kids like it its good.

HOFFMANN: Kids? Any age?

DOHERTY: Yes. He had a very controversial character, but some of his positive

qualities, he just had very good human instincts. So, for example, urban legend, I have

no idea if this is historically correct but the legend goes that he was the one who

invented ‘Please Call Me’s’. And that was based on the experience of his children giving

him ‘Dutch Calls’ because they had no money. The kind of person who sees human

behaviour and says: “I like this”, “I want to do this”,“I can use this”,“People need this,

they like it”. So Meerkat came out of that. It worked, so we ran with it.

HOFFMANN: In conclusion, I’m not completely sure what I am looking for but mainly

I’m trying to establish why they used an animated character as well as the choice of

target audience? But it seems these choices weren’t as complex as I had thought?

DOHERTY: I would say, if I had to answer simply, choice of animated character is

because we were trying to bring the idea of entertainment to life. Animation,

entertainment, it was also the idea of multimedia coming to the phone; it was a

character from another world, from the virtual world into the real world.

HOFFMANN: That would explain the live-‐action environment?

DOHERTY: Yes, that for me the birth of Meerkat was in Vodafone live!. It was a portal,

entertainment based character so I think those things kind of work. Target market

there would have definitely been, once again, the distinction between how it was born


11

and what it became would definitely been young. If you think about it

HOFFMANN: Who uses their cellphone to connect to the internet?

DOHERTY: Yes. So I mean in South Africa the profile of sort of, now, I don’t know exactly

what it was then, but right now, the profile of people who use their mobile to connect

online and stuff like that is 16-‐34. That would be the same target market.

HOFFMANN: Did this campaign have any impact on FCB’s thinking as far as animation is

concerned?

DOHERTY: It was useful for us in the sense, at the time; the industry was still struggling

with what it meant to do integrated work, integrated in the sense across different

mediums.

HOFFMANN: What mediums where used?

DOHERTY: Everything, except for radio. Meerkat was used in store, for sponsorship.

HOFFMANN: And that was only after Vodacom took over?

DOHERTY: Yes. You will find Mo the Meerkat wearing rugby uniforms, soccer uniforms,

Durban July. He became the face of Vodacom.

HOFFMANN: For how long about?

DOHERTY: For about two to three years, it was a very long, enduring campaign.

Tony Koenderman Interview

1

Tony Koenderman





Interviewee: Tony Koenderman

Date: 07/02/2011

Place: Tony Koenderman’s Office

Finweek

Media Park

69 Kingsway Avenue,

Auckland Park

Johannesburg

South Africa


2

02 February 2011


Tony Koenderman

HOFFMANN: I have spoken to a few people at Draft FCB as well as people from the

animation companies involved in the campaign, I do however, need to place the

campaign in a broader context.

KOENDERMAN: That particular Vodacom Meerkat?

HOFFMANN: Yes, that’s why I am interested in, not the history of Vodacom as such, but

their history in advertising?

KOENDERMAN: Right, well, for the first ten years they were totally dominated by the

Yebo Gogo Campaign. They had produced, basically, just one new ad a year.

HOFFMANN: Yes, it ran until something ridiculous like 2004?

KOENDERMAN: Yes, and then the Vodacom Meerkat was the first break away from that,

which makes it very significant. And ever since that they have been going for, in fact,

they haven’t been doing anything lately, come to think of it.

HOFFMANN: They have had those “Yebo Summer” commercials, but they change quite

regularly.

KOENDERMAN: Yes, those sort of things, but they are not, sort of, brand orientated, they

just take advantage of the seasonal interest. But, the Yebo Gogo thing was quite

interesting because it was fairly contentious when it started, because of political and

racial sensitivities.


3

HOFFMANN: Yes.

KOENDERMAN: And one of the reasons, people assumed, they got away with it, was

making a joke of relationships between black and white, they depicted the black guy as

the smart guy and the white guy as the dumb palooka. The first one was the best of the

lot, I think, but there were some pretty good executions and it was certainly loved by

everybody. But ten years went by and it was really time to bring it to an end. I think it

had probably went on too long by then.

HOFFMANN: Do you have any thoughts about why this campaign was so successful?

Because it was their first ever campaign, it was a new brand was it related to that? Are

brands more successful when they launch? Because under normal circumstances

products change minimally over many years and in this case the product and brand

were completely new?

KOENDERMAN: Well, I don’t think they needed to advertise at all because it was a brand

new product that everyone wanted. When they first launched cell phones in the market

they first said maybe there is a market for about 250 thousand, now it is 35 million.

They had no concept of what the need was. It is an interesting reflection on how society

is viewed and understood or not understood. But here was an absolutely fundamental

need of people to communicate. People who couldn’t afford to put a decent three meals

on the table would have a cellphone.

HOFFMANN: Initially wasn’t it criticised as a toy for the elite businessman? Very few

people could afford cell phones? Did they market it to everyone?

KOENDERMAN: Well, I don’t remember it being, I don’t recall a lot of criticism about

elitism. And very quickly, it was surprising when you started seeing gardeners and all


4

sorts of people with low incomes wandering around with cellphones. And lots of people

who were richer than them didn’t have cell phones because they were quite

conservative. So there was some surprise that it was so universal, but again that

exposes how little we know about ourselves as people. There is an absolutely fantastic

demand for communication as we are now seeing continued with Facebook and Twitter

and all these things. They’re just proving this absolutely insatiable desire to

communicate. I think that’s the most interesting thing about that period for me. When

they started, they didn’t have a level playing field because Vodacom came first, they got

the license first.

HOFFMANN: Didn’t they get the license at the same time but they didn’t launch at the

same time? Am I mistaken?

KOENDERMAN: I can’t remember the exact details, but they launched nine months

ahead of MTN. And I don’t think it was because they had a level playing field, MTN had

to do a lot of catching up. They definitely, in my memory, got the license after Vodacom.

So they were not able to launch at the same time. By the time they launched they were

saying, everybody thought now we will have some competition, but we didn’t have

competition because they were so far behind that they just had to go with the flow. They

didn’t have to, they thought they had to. Then along came Cell C and the same thing

again, no level playing field. They made the mistake, for them it was a mistake. When

MTN got into the market place, it was satisfactory from a business point of view, if not

from an ethical point of view, for them to just, more or less agree, they didn’t collude

openly, but the one says these are our rates, the other says well we’ll match those rates.

And they both into the market with similar high rates, outrageously high rates. And they

both made plenty of money. And MTN eventually became bigger but by extending into


5

the rest of Africa. So they are now bigger than Vodacom

HOFFMANN: But not in South Africa?

KOENDERMAN: Not in South Africa. They are bigger overall, but smaller in South Africa.

So they have done wonderfully well out of this and then along comes Cell C, the third

one. And they make the mistake of also kind of trying to become a passive partner of

this cartel. And they got nowhere. Because by then, the others were well entrenched, all

they could do was pick up the dregs, and they dregs weren’t very good. They weren’t the

best users, they were the people who didn’t have money

HOFFMANN: And swopped between providers?

KOENDERMAN: Yes. So they got nowhere. What they are now doing, which makes some

sense, and that position being very aggressive, very proactive in terms of their

marketing and they are sort of like the Nandos of the cell phone business. Irreverent

and cheeky

HOFFMANN: And forward.

KOENDERMAN: And upsetting people all the time, but making themselves known. And

once they have that position where people are actually paying attention to them, they

are offering some quite good offers which are competing on price. Which they never

dared to do before. This new guy is an absolute genius at marketing. Reichelt.

HOFFMANN: Lars, I think.

KOENDERMAN: Yes, he is a German who was done similar things for the group

internationally in places like Bangladesh. He went in there, and I don’t know the details,

but did something similar, rescued a moribund organisation and made them the hero’s.


6

And there’s quite a few people who are favourably disposed towards them even though

they are not using them because they are bringing genuine competition to the market.

The trouble is the others can also match their prices because they have made such a

fortune in the past.

HOFFMANN: So probably more so?

KOENDERMAN: Yes, so if they tried, what they are now doing is they are competing on

price but the main effect is that they are bringing the prices down and Cell C is not

gaining the subscribers that it needs. It is getting some, but probably not enough. Not as

many as it might otherwise would have gotten. I was often left wondering how many

companies do you need to get true competition. I think you need at least three.

HOFFMANN: Yes.

KOENDERMAN: But that is not very many. You probably need more than that but you

can get it with three. As long as you have someone who is willing to position themselves

aggressively. As Reichelt has done. He is an experienced person in this field, and he has

done it in other developing markets. And I believe he will probably succeed because he

knows what works. And they investing heavily, they’re clearly here to stay. They are

investing 50 billion, or whatever it is, some enormous number, on building their own

network because they have been piggy backing on the Vodacom network. And they have

had to pay a fortune. For the use of it, for the interconnect fees. Those are now being

controlled by the government so it is no longer a problem. But it is better to have your

own network anyway.

HOFFMANN: So do you think Vodacom still has an advantage because they launched

first and started advertising first?


7

KOENDERMAN: They’re so big, its hard for anyone really to put a dent in their armour. I

think they have gotten quite complacent, inevitably, with size, that happens. You

become so big you think you’re invincible. But everybody can be beaten, sooner or later.

So I think, they are going to have to pull themselves together, buck up their ideas a bit. I

would like to see that happen. It is one of the most infuriating things as a consumer, to

be taken advantage of. They can cut their prices in half and still make massive profits.

They spent on promotions, much more than they needed to, sponsorship of sport and

stuff. They didn’t need to. But they had this money and they were to embarrassed to

admit that, we have to spend some of our profits so that it doesn’t look embarrassing. So

they sponsored everything under the sun, now they have started pulling back because

HOFFMANN: Competition is rife?

KOENDERMAN: yes, they have to watch these costs. It created an artificial market in

sponsorship as well because that grew more than it should.

HOFFMANN: If the Yebo Gogo campaign had been less successful do you thing Vodacom

would have been less successful as a whole?

KOENDERMAN: No, I don’t. I think, because it was a new product, never been seen

before, Word of Mouth would have done the trick, very, very quickly. I don’t think they

needed to advertise it at all. Maybe, initially, just a bit of awareness. Maybe they could

have just gone by spending a lot less than they did. They spent it because they had it,

they didn’t know what to do with it and they were to embarrassed to admit that their

profits were outrageous.

HOFFMANN: What kind of impact did the cellular providers as new players make on the

South African advertising industry since Vodacom’s inception in 1994? Did anything


8

change in the industry since 1994?

KOENDERMAN: The advertising agencies that had their business obviously did very

well. Draftfcb has had Vodacom all this time, the others have changed. MTN never really

have had a successful advertising strategy. One of the reasons was the success of the

Vodacom positioning. They tried all sorts of things, but they didn’t manage to match it.

So, I mean, they have still got quite a big slice of the market. Do you know what the slice

is at the moment?

HOFFMANN: I can’t remember the exact number right now.

KOENDERMAN: At some stage it was about 60% Vodacom and about 36% MTN and the

remaining three or four percent was Cell C.

HOFFMANN: I think Vodacom definitely has less than 60% at this point, its around 55%

percent.

KOENDERMAN: I wonder why that is, what do you think?

HOFFMANN: I’m not sure, maybe people started getting frustrated with their service, or

the novelty is starting to wear off with there being more competition.

KOENDERMAN: Another thing about it, one has to remember, is their measurement is

very inaccurate because a lot of those phones are inactive.

HOFFMANN: Yes.

KOENDERMAN: And they don’t seem to know, exactly, how many are inactive. There is

quite a big percentage. You take registered users and it gives you one figure and then

you take active users and you get an entirely different figure. I think they may have the

numbers but they do not disclose them.


9

HOFFMANN: Yes, they are not very forthcoming with such information I have learnt.

KOENDERMAN: Go to a stock broking firm?

HOFFMANN: A Stock broking firm? I tried to get the Millward Brown Adtrack reports

for 2005-‐2007 from Draftfcb, but I couldn’t get it without Vodacom’s permission. And

they gave me the run around.

KOENDERMAN: Its all very competitive information.

HOFFMANN: Yes, I’m not quite sure what information these reports contain.

KOENDERMAN: But this is in the 2004 year [referring to the ‘The Big Spenders’ table in

the 2004 Adreview publication], this gives you the top spenders: Unilever was number

one. National Government was number two, that, of course was an election year so they

spent heavily, they are not normally up there. Then Shoprite Checkers, then MTN, then

Pick an Pay, then Vodacom.

HOFFMANN: So MTN spent more than Vodacom?

KOENDERMAN: Yes, and they have done for much of the time spent more but got less

results. So the two of them are in the top six there and pretty much always are in the top

six these days. Just to warn you, there was a mistake in these two issues, we managed to

carry the same table in both years. The ‘Big Spenders’ tables are the same in both two

years [referring to the 2009 and 2010 Adreview publication]. So it’s not the 2010 figure,

it’s the 2009 figure.

HOFFMANN: oh, ok.

KOENDERMAN: So this year [referring to the ‘The Big Spenders’ table in the 2009

Adreview publication], but this year: Unilever, Shoprite, MTN, Vodacom, National


10

Government, Pick and Pay.

HOFFMANN: So it’s the same

KOENDERMAN: It’s the same, but in slightly different order. And that was in 2004 and

this is in 2008. Yes, so they have been up there with the big spenders but have they

influenced anybody else? I don’t think so. A lot of people have been inspired by this

Yebo Gogo campaign because it was so effective and it went on for so long and it just, as

they say, had legs.

HOFFMANN: Do you think that that was just coincidence? The right campaign at the

right time?

KOENDERMAN: With a great idea no one ever knows quite for sure how big it is going to

be. The great idea was this relationship between the two guys, the smart black guy and

the dumb white guy. And that sums up the idea. The first one was the best ad in terms of

how it was done and credibility and even the little joke about Yebo Gogo and he didn’t

realise it meant hello granny. But all of that was an in joke that everybody appreciated

even if they didn’t know it to begin with. It felt part of the humour that wasn’t obvious.

But then they kept the same relationship going and it was never as good again. Having

said that, that wasn’t the highest rated of their ads.

HOFFMANN: Not?

KOENDERMAN: No, I think the highest rated came several years later. I didn’t think it

was as good an ad. But the public did. That’s what counts. Do you want something on

the history of that?

HOFFMANN: Yes, any information could potentially be useful.


11

KOENDERMAN: Petra Peacock is the public relations consultant at Draftfcb. I know she

produced a history of that particular campaign, which is quite interesting and is worth

getting a copy of. So try her.

HOFFMANN: Ok.

KOENDERMAN: Where is my book? It’s 794 4665.

HOFFMANN: And her name again?

KOENDERMAN: Petra Peacock. And, you know, you can say you have spoken to me. And

she, just say that I remembered the history she produced, I think it was on the 10th

anniversary of this campaign. It will, sort of , if nothing else, give you the dates and

timings of various things. They’ve got information about how successful each campaign

was, measured by, there are various ways of measuring it, I’m not sure. If she still has

got it, people throw these things away, they don’t keep them forever. But that will be

worth getting your hands on. I had it but I threw it away, there is just a limit to how

much you can store. Right.

HOFFMANN: Do you have any insights about Vodacom as a client? I have heard that

under Alan Knott-‐Craig and Andre Beyers, the previous marketing manager, they

weren’t very concerned with strategy? They just, sort of, just pulled things out of their

hat? If it worked it worked, if not they tried something new? And that they were actually

quite difficult clients?

KOENDERMAN: For the agencies?

HOFFMANN: Yes.

KOENDERMAN: Yes, they were extremely difficult clients. Alan Knott-‐Craig is a very


12

arrogant person. He wrote a book about his business philosophy. He used to work for

Telkom. So he was a kind of civil servant. So it was quite amazing because civil servants

are usually not very dynamic business men. It was absolutely amazing how he came out

of that background and he was an engineer by training, I think. And became a successful

marketer. But that I think, shows the point, no matter what you did, you were going to

make money in that market.

HOFFMANN: So it wasn’t Knott-‐Craig’s ingenuity as such?

KOENDERMAN: I don’t think so. I mean, he certainly allowed this campaign to run and it

was effective. But while this campaign was running the other short term campaigns

would also be used for different purposes. But that was the fundamental over riding

thing. And, I mean, he was quite corrupt. There was a lot of nepotism. He had set up

little businesses that his nephew and his son and his daughter.

HOFFMANN: Yes, I heard about that, but not in too much detail.

KOENDERMAN: You can Google him.

HOFFMANN: Yes, I have.

KOENDERMAN: There is a company, a South African sponsorship and promotion

company, and it manages their sponsorship programmes. Its main client was Vodacom,

I don’t think it had any other significant clients, and it was run by a relative of his [Alan

Knott-‐Craig]. But he is now gone from that business and I don’t think we’ll hear from

him again. Well, MTN was equally bad. But they actually did make an attempt, I could be

wrong, my impression is that MTN made more of an attempt to strategize their position

because they were number two. They wanted to catch up.


13

HOFFMANN: That’s why they relied on strategy? But Vodacom was doing well so they

didn’t feel the need?

KOENDERMAN: Yes, exactly. But having said that, they never were very successful with

it. They kept chopping and changing. They kept chopping and changing their leadership

and their ad agency. And they didn’t have any of the answers. One answer they had,

which was a good one, was to go into the rest of Africa. And they dominate cell phone

operations in sub-‐Saharan Africa.

HOFFMANN: And they are ahead of Vodacom in Nigeria?

KOENDERMAN: Yes, well Vodacom isn’t in much of Africa.

HOFFMANN: Only in five countries.

KOENDERMAN: Five is it?

HOFFMANN: Yes.

KOENDERMAN: So that was a good strategy. But the rest was just floundering around.

In a brand new market, with a brand new product that people wanted, no matter what,

you couldn’t fail. It’s a classic example, I think, of a situation where you just can’t loose.

HOFFMANN: So, do you think, it was not to Vodacom’s detriment that they did not rely

on strategy? Because, I believe now, with Vodafone’s majority share, they are now using

three year strategies?

KOENDERMAN: Yes, well, Vodafone is a major player internationally. And they would

have strategies. And they have had a lot of experience in the market place. They can see

what they are doing here that is wrong or right. That’s no surprise to me that they

introduced strategic planning. But we haven’t seen any results. The only thing that is


14

happening in the market is what Cell C is doing. The other two

HOFFMANN: Are stagnant?

KOENDERMAN: Yes, they don’t know what to do about it. So they are doing nothing.

And maybe they are right, probably best not to react all the time. They keep suing them,

or taking them to the Advertising Standards Authority, for making false claims.

HOFFMANN: Does that cost Cell C money?

KOENDERMAN: No, I think every time someone complains Cell C benefits. Because

people now are rather sceptical of the ASA. They are not great supporters. And they like

the underdogs. Like Nandos. I don’t know if you have noticed this, but its become an

international name that is written into scripts of television programmes. There was one

just the other night, once upon a time people would say get me a quarter pounder from

McDonalds, now they say, lets go to Nandos. And it happened last night because

someone I was with noticed it. And this little group of people was saying lets go to

Nandos.

HOFFMANN: Was this an international production?

KOENDERMAN: Yes, British, wasn’t a South African thing. I was watching on DSTV, the

BBC channel. That just shows you how successful they have been on a global scale. And

people over there don’t realise it’s a South African thing. They think it is Portuguese, but

English, you know, because obviously the staff are all English. There is nothing that

identifies it as South African. And they think it is one of their own. Which makes it

successful. We’re not here to talk about Nandos but it is an interesting story. So I think,

every time the big companies, its interesting to contrast it again, the big suppliers in the

fast food and chicken outlets, there is Mc Donalds and Chicken Licken


15

HOFFMANN: And KFC

KOENDERMAN: And KFC, I suppose KFC is number one in chicken.

HOFFMANN: Yes, it is.

KOENDERMAN: I think they have been more careful not to attack Nandos.

HOFFMANN: Because it would look unfavourable?

KOENDERMAN: They would just look like the big bully boys and the public’s sympathies

with the underdog already meaning that it brings more attention to them. I think in the

cell phone business they are making a mistake, taking them to the ASA. It doen’t do

them [Cell C] any harm, whatsoever. They just laugh all the way to bank. I think it would

probably be a bit wiser just to ignore Cell C.

HOFFMANN: So do you think Vodacom’s future is looking less prosperous than it was in

the past 15 years?

KOENDERMAN: Well, they have had enormous growth and they won’t ever match that

percentage growth again because the market is now saturated. But there is still some

growth in it. Particularly in search and data, rather than voice calls. And that is what Cell

C has identified, and that there are opportunities and they are absolutely right.

Especially with smart phones. Everyone is going to be using it for a search. I mean that’s

the kind of thing that people. Do you remember the Guinness book of records?

HOFFMANN: Yes.

KOENDERMAN: The Guinness Book of Records was started by the Mc Guerta Brothers

in the UK, and they got Guinness, a mayor beer manufacturer


16

HOFFMANN: I didn’t even make that connection.

KOENDERMAN: they sponsored it, because, Where do people get arguing about sports

results? In the pub. Then in the bar, if they had these things, they would have a copy of

the Guinness Book of Records and it would find the answer. Now with cellphones you

do a quick search. It is the same need, but met in a different way. A much better and

faster way. So that’s going to be the big growth area.

HOFFMANN: And that was marked by the launch of the Vodafone live! portal, where you

could access news and entertainment on your phone. And the campaign that I am

looking at launched this portal but was then taken over by Vodacom. But the content

that this portal tried to promote was quite primitive at first.

KOENDERMAN: Now the move, and this is where the growth is, is in terms of handsets.

Its into smart phones. And to underestimate that potential would be a big mistake. It’s

got the same growth potential. There will be a new growth surge, not in total usage, but

in improved quality of handsets. They have come down in price. They are talking about

R1500 or R1000.

HOFFMANN: The bottom of the range Blackberry is about R2000.

KOENDERMAN: Well, there you are. Not long ago your cheap phone was costing that.

HOFFMANN: That’s true. So do you think, as in the case of the Yebo Gogo characters,

brand icons are successful from an advertising perspective? I have read that if you do

find the right character for your brand is like striking gold? Do you agree with that? Is it

profitable from an advertising perspective to use brand icons?

KOENDERMAN: Yes, what are you thinking of?


17

HOFFMANN:The Meerkat and Buddy the Boxer. The Chappies Chipmunk comes to mind,

but he wasn’t really a character, he didn’t really have personality. Associating a certain

personality with a brand?

KOENDERMAN: Well, I think the problem with it is, it’s a kind of living creature, even if

it is animated, you see it as a living creature. And, there is a danger that it can just run

out of steam.

HOFFMANN: Or be a bit to stereotypical.

KOENDERMAN: Yes. And you have to keep coming up with relevant ideas. It’s a hard

thing to do. If you look at a brand, say like Nike, their symbol is that ‘swoosh’. Now that

will never die out because it is merely an identifier. It doesn’t jump out and do things.

But it stands for a kind of mindset: ‘Just Do It’. Outgoing and positive. And that’s always

been their thing. Go for it, don’t be stopped by anything. Be active and aggressive and

positive and so on. It stands for those kinds of values. And they are eternal values. They

don’t suddenly loose their appeal. And then, within the context of that you can do all

sorts of things. They have lots of people. They use boxers and footballers and so on as

their spokes people. But they change them they don’t keep the same ones on for long.

They would never have the same one on for ten years. So it is an interesting contrast

between that kind of symbol and a living symbol.

HOFFMANN: Something with personality?

KOENDERMAN: Yes, the two guys, the Yebo Gogo guys, were also going to get too old at

some stage.

HOFFMANN: And I think they actually got sick of it.


18

KOENDERMAN: Yes. So they did have a wear out factor which the swoosh never does.

Pick and Pay for example, like Virgin, is interesting, because the founder of it is a equally

strong part of the brand. Raymond Ackerman, although he is now semi-‐retired, it has

begun to fade, but in his hey day, he was closely identified with Pick and Pay. Everyone

knew who Raymond Ackerman was and that Pick and Pay is his business. And if they

liked Raymond Ackerman, they liked his brand. And that is a strong position to be in.

But, you know, what happens if he gets run over by a bus?

HOFFMANN: Or if he does something he shouldn’t have?

KOENDERMAN: Yes. And Branson is the same sort of thing, but a different image.

Irreverent and youthful. He is going to get too old to do all those things as well.

HOFFMANN: So I’m trying to establish the value of using a character, animated or not,

would be in advertising. Is it favourable for advertisers? Is it valuable to associate your

brand with a certain character?

KOENDERMAN: Well, yes, I think, maybe, an answer would be, if you use a living,

breathing personality you have all sorts of problems. He could get killed, change his

nature, be convicted of paedophilia or something. Anything is possible. So that’s the

danger. Whereas if you have a static symbol, that obviously can’t happen to it.

HOFFMANN: Or an animated character?

KOENDERMAN: Yes, but even an animated character can start doing the wrong things

because the people behind it are doing the wrong things. But those are strong symbols,

they work well, but those are the greater dangers of something going wrong. The static

symbol works well if it is nice and strong. Like that Nike thing is fantastic. The whole

look of it is just right. It looks positive, it looks like a tick, which is a favourable thing.


19

And it stands for these values.

Brett Morris Interview

1

Brett Morris





Interviewee: Brett Morris

Date: 23/09/2010

Place: Brett Morris’ Office

Draft FCB Johannesburg

Pin Mill Farm

164 Katherine Street

Sandton

Johannesburg

South Africa


2

23 September 2010


Brett Morris

HOFFMANN: Was the Vodacom Meerkat Draft FCB’s first campaign using animation?

MORRIS: No, it definitely wouldn’t have been.

HOFFMANN: First major animated campaign?

MORRIS: Its hard to say, you know, this agency and this group has been around for 80

years.

HOFFMANN: From a South African perspective?

MORRIS: There’s the Oros character, he was developed in South Africa, as far as I know.

Draft FCB also handled Simba at one point, Simba the Lion was animated. In fact they

also handled Chappies at some point, remember Chappy the Chipmunk?

HOFFMANN: Oh, yes, I do.

MORRIS: That was also animated. So it’s certainly not a recent thing.

HOFFMANN: Did the campaign’s success and Mo’s popularity change your

consciousness around animation? Did you consider animation in a higher regard or vow

to use it again? Was it an effective tool from an advertising perspective?

MORRIS: Yes, its definitely effective. I don’t think we ever look at a campaign or any sort

of executional devise and say: “That was successful, we’ll use it again.” It really depends


3

on the brief, on the client, and also, the fact that we’ve that we’ve done it in that way,

prevents us, in a funny way, from doing it again. Because our job is too come up with

fresh stuff and re-‐invent all the time.

HOFFMANN: So you don’t think your or FCB’s opinion of animation changed in any way

due to this campaign? Or do you consider it an isolated incident?

MORRIS: No, look, considering the fact that we were constantly looking for new ways to

do things the really interesting thing about Mo in particular is that he was an animated

character interacting with the real world, which, as you know, is not a new thing. Look

at Roger Rabbit, that’s kind of what that was. But I suppose its how it was used in this

instance that made it so successful. So, I suppose it made us look at animation in a

different way but not necessarily animation in its self, if that makes sense. It’s difficult

to say if it fundamentally changed the way we see animation, it’s really dependant on

what’s good for the brief.

HOFFMANN: So you use animation if it is useful or necessary for the brief?

MORRIS: Yes, I do think perhaps animation does tend to get over looked, it’s not like it is

on our radar screens all the time. But its not that its, you know people often think that

animation is going to be cheaper than shooting a live action commercial, that’s definitely

not the case. Certainly if you want to do it properly, and do it well.

HOFFMANN: And it also takes time.

MORRIS: Its very, very time consuming. So I suppose we learn lessons along the way.

The more we do these kinds of things as an industry we constantly, as I say, pushing the

boundaries, we learn about the benefits and the pit falls of various devices, animation is

obviously one of them.


4

HOFFMANN: And then more specific to the campaign, I’m trying to establish what

Vodacom was looking for from the campaign and how you implicated it? I believe the

campaign was not really based on market surveys or research?

MORRIS: That’s not entirely true. The inception of the campaign was for a Vodacom

product called ‘Vodafone live!’, and the idea, the strategy behind that was that Vodafone

live! brings entertainment into your world were ever you are because you have

entertainment on your cellphone.

HOFFMANN: To clarify, you handled the account through out its entirety, from the first

commercial for Vodafone live! and the succeeding commercials for Vodacom?

MORRIS: Correct. So Mo basically was a representation of entertainment coming into

your world. So what was interesting was that it was an animated character in an live-‐

action environment. But it was a strategic thing, a metaphor, for saying entertainment

will be with you wherever you are. So he jumps out of the phone, literally, and does this

dance for this woman. Mo then evolved into a character that became a Vodacom

property because he was so successful. And then his function was about Vodacom’s

relationship with you and how Vodacom brings you, being a telecoms provider, gives

you the opportunity to connect more, to be entertained, to do all of those things and he

was the embodiment of that.

HOFFMANN: Who was the campaign aimed at in terms of target audience?

MORRIS: That’s a tricky one. Not tricky in describing it, because the target audience is

everyone. Vodacom has an incredibly large base, over 20 million people, spanning from

every LSM [Living Standards Measure] you can think of. So it’s incredibly diverse. And

that’s a challenge in itself because


5

HOFFMANN: It will never appeal to everyone equally?

MORRIS: Correct. You can’t be all things to all people. Certainly a mantra we hold true,

but ironically Mo was able to do that. A lot of Vodacom’s ads are able to do that.

HOFFMANN: So it wasn’t aimed at a young audience specifically?

MORRIS: I suppose initially it was in that Vodafone live! was a youth product. So could

say that, initially, he actually was more targeted.

HOFFMANN: But due to his popularity?

MORRIS: Yes, as often happens with these things, there was a huge spill over to the

point that 99 percent of the population absolutely loved him.

HOFFMANN: What was the thinking behind the different scenarios in each ad? The

scenarios ranged from Mo in a club with a hip hop track to him roller-‐skating to a Lou

Bega , more Latin track. Was that done to align more with certain audiences?

MORRIS: No, not necessarily. The music has to be, it’s obviously going to be a specific

genre, but it has to appeal across segments. So again, in the realm of entertainment and

connection and adding more to your life, we found a song and built the story

HOFFMANN: So you chose the song first?

MORRIS: Not always, but sometimes. It’s a bit of a chicken and egg thing, it’s hard to say.

Music is a very important part of communication. Sometimes it would be the song, in

some cases it wasn’t, in some cases it was. The story was built and we found a song to go

with it.

HOFFMANN: Your thinking behind each scenario, was it impromptu or did it serve a


6

specific aim?

MORRIS: Definitely not impromptu, there’s a strategy behind it. The strategy was

determined up front. The entire campaign was based on the same strategy, it wasn’t

different for each one.

HOFFMANN: What was the overall strategy if I may ask?

MORRIS: As I said to you, initially it was for Vodafone live!, bout bringing entertainment

into your world, and by extension Vodacom is that. Being telecoms, connecting you to

your friends, to entertainment, everything that you need. It was about bringing a little

bit of entertainment, embodied by Mo, into your life.

HOFFMANN: So each scenario was an example of such entertainment?

MORRIS: Yes, and also, I say it was based on the same strategy, but they were seasonal,

so some were themed around Vodacom’s end of year campaign, summer. Some were

based on other, I can’t remember off hand what they all were.

HOFFMANN: There was the first one the Stripper, actually I still need to establish the

chronological order, but it was the stripper, then I think it was the one in the club, and

then the one on the beach with the speakers, the roller skating one.

MORRIS: The second one was the Conga line.

HOFFMANN: Yes.

MORRIS: So now, I mean, it’s not vastly different, some of them would have been

summer themed and some would be mid-‐year themed.


7

HOFFMANN: But its basically fun, entertainment, that kind of thing?

MORRIS: Correct.

HOFFMANN: So each scenario was then specific to the season or just slightly different?

MORRIS: Ja.

HOFFMANN: Ok, that makes sense. And then, as you said, the main reason you used an

animated character was because it was supposed to embody another world? Was that

the main function?

MORRIS: Well, look, it could have just as easily been a person that came out the phone,

metaphorically, to come and entertain you. But felt it would be more interesting if it was

an animated character because it amplified the fact that it was not the real world. It was

taking something out of your phone and bringing it into your life.

HOFFMANN: The choice of a Meerkat?

MORRIS: Meerkat was because we wanted to make it something South African.

HOFFMANN: The choice of an animated animal character, did it have anything to do

with Vodacom not wanting to appeal to a mixed race target audience? The ‘Yebo Gogo’

campaign made use of a black icon, Bankole Omotoso, and a white one, Michael de

Pinna.

MORRIS: Yes, I would say that is a definite benefit, but that’s not the reason for being for

the communication.

HOFFMANN: So was this just a benefit realised afterwards or was this considered

during planning stages?


8

MORRIS: Again, it’s a chicken and egg thing. These are all considerations to have in mind

when developing the work.

HOFFMANN: So that was a consideration when you developed the character?

MORRIS: Its not the reason we came up with animation, but animation has that benefit.

HOFFMANN: I’ve heard that at the time MTN were portraying themselves as a ‘new

South African’ telecoms provider, where as Vodacom was still seen as having a majority

white market. Did that play any role when you were designing the character?

MORRIS: No. I don’t know how much truth there is to that. You know, Vodacom had a

certain brand personality, MTN had a certain brand personality. Initially, as you’ve said,

it was actually a Vodafone live! thing that was targeted at the youth. So it was more

about youth than it was about race.

HOFFMANN: Did you perhaps use an animated character as opposed to an actor to draw

audience’s attention? Because an animated character is more ‘exciting’ in itself?

MORRIS: I don’t think so. I think our jobs in communication and advertising is to draw

people in. And you can do that in many, many different ways.

HOFFMANN: So animation is not necessarily beneficial for that?

MORRIS: You can do bad animation that will have the opposite effect or you can do

great animation that will do what it needs to do, like Mo was able to do. So its more

about hoe its done than what it is. Its more about, were in the business of storytelling,

drawing people in and communicating something to them than it is about an animal

versus a person. Look, the truth is there are certain things that people gravitate

towards, the cliché of animals and babies, that’s true. I’m not sure if the same


9

necessarily applies to animation, I think that’s more in the craft. But I would imagine it

has something to do with it, if its done well. Are you taking about animation as in CG

special effects as well as animated characters?

HOFFMANN: Both, but a character can also have that effect.

MORRIS: But I see those as very different disciplines.

HOFFMANN: I’m looking at it broadly, but characters mainly.

MORRIS: CG has the same potential, to do things not possible in the real world. But CG is

so advanced these that people aren’t impressed by it anymore. So the story has to be

compelling, and how you tell the story has to be amazing rather than “Oh, look, we using

CG.” Same applies to characters.

HOFFMANN: Lastly, as an creative director, your opinion of the campaign? Mo also drew

somewhat negative attention, was the campaign successful overall?

MORRIS: It was hugely successful. When you say negative, you’re literally talking about

99 versus 1 percent?

HOFFMANN: Yes, but I’ve been met with some negative responses when mentioning

this project and I’ve also been told that this campaign did not win any Louries or such

awards?

MORRIS: Is this in the world of animation?

HOFFMANN: Yes.

MORRIS: That’s what I mean. I’ll be more specific, so where this character drew a lot of

criticism, is in the creative and animation industry. And I would take that with a pinch of


10

salt, because people tend to detest other creative people’s success, that’s the truth of it.

I’m not saying that, it’s not about politics, but creativity is fuelled with all sorts of egos.

And the bottom line is, regardless of what creative people think of him

HOFFMANN: From an advertising perspective?

MORRIS: It was hugely successful, off the charts successful. So the percentages you are

talking about are miniscule, they tend to have a louder voice and bigger opinion because

it is their industry.

Bruce Paynter Interview

1

Bruce Paynter





Interviewee: Bruce Paynter

Date: 22/11/2010

Place: Not Applicable-‐ Electronic


2

HOFFMANN: Which of the Vodacom Meerkat commercials were you involved in/did you

direct? Excluding, of course, the first two done by Plank Films. Here are the titles for

easier reference: 1. Meerkat Stripper (Plank Films)

2. Meerkat Conga Line (Plank Films)

3. Meerkat Bling

4. Meerkat Whip

5. Rollerskate Mambo

6. Meerkat Cruise

PAYNTER: I directed 'Bling', then the Miami Beach-‐style film after that ('Whip'?) and

'Roller-‐skate Mambo'.

HOFFMANN: Are you familiar with the circumstances that led to the Vodacom

Meerkat contract being moved from AnimMate! and Plank Film

Productions to Black Ginger and Cab Films?

PAYNTER: Yup. When we (CAB) were asked to pitch on the 'Bling' spot I used 'The

Incredibles' as a reference. In my opinion, the characterisation in that film showed how

conventional animation using 3-‐D technology delivered the best of both worlds. I was

critical of the motion capture technique because, while being very accurate, that process

delivered none of the comedic 'elasticity' that true animation has. I argued that the

Meerkat's character could do with more inherent comedy in him, instead of merely

being a drawn-‐on 'fancy dress' over a human figure. The agency agreed and we brought

Black Ginger in. The client also wanted the Meerkat's face to change to be a little 'softer'

and more friendly. Darrin Hofmeyer (the animator and inventor of Moitia) then built a

proper 3D model of, first Mo then Moitia, and began producing animated 'walk cycles'

much the way characters would be developed for a Disney film. We nevertheless, still

used a human dancer as a template and shot multiple angle references, exactly as John


3

Lassiter's team did with the Incredibles. The Ad agency and Vodacom must have been

happy with the results because they hired me for the next two spots!

HOFFMANN: If so, did AnimMate!'s use of Motion Capture play a role in this?

What were the objections (if any) around the use of Motion Capture in

the first two commercials?

Paynter: See above.

HOFFMANN: As the director, how did you feel working with an animated

character in an live-‐action environment? Were you familiar with this

process/ had you ever directed an commercial featuring animated

characters previous to the Vodacom Meerkat campaign?

Did you use actors as 'stand-‐ins' for Mo and Moitia on set?

PAYNTER: Although I have placed independent CG objects into Live Action backgrounds

before, this was the first time I had integrated conventional Animation and Live Action.

As a process it is obviously odd because the central character is not on set when you

shoot. Thankfully the scripts provided me with a number of interesting people and

objects to aim my camera at. My intention was to blend them more convincingly than in

the previous two spots by placing Mo 'in' the scenes. By this I mean placing objects and

people between him and the camera creating a real sense of three-‐dimensional space

(rather than simply creating space for him to be 'stuck on' to the live backgrounds in

post production). To this end, I shot extra foreground elements (people and props)

against blue screen and composited them over Mo in post. We also used the silver ball

technique so that the lighting on the animated figure would match the ambience of the

Live Action scenes. We had a Mo 'puppet' which we used to shoot scale references for

Mo's size in the final scenes.


4

HOFFMANN: What was your opinion of Mo as an animated character? Do you think

he was a well designed character? In your opinion, would an actor have

served the campaign better?

PAYNTER: At the outset, I don't think that Vodacom had any intention of Mo being

anything more than he appeared in the Stripper spot. So I'm not sure he was developed

thoroughly enough to begin with. Then Vodacom went mad for him. We always worked

under extreme time pressures and the client kept taking more Live Action out of the

cuts and putting more of Mo in. The result was more air time for him but significantly

less finesse. I had hoped that we would create a character that was really well-‐

developed in personality as well as a physical entity. Whilst it is well documented (by

Vodacom) that Mo was incredibly popular, most people I knew thought he was terrible.

Perhaps if he had been based on a real actor (like all the famous modern animated

characters are), he would have been better realised. Instead the client told us who he

was and how he should behave. Pity.

HOFFMANN: Lastly, on a more general note, as a directer having worked on

numerous television/film commercials, do you consider animation a

valuable tool for film commercials? Does animation provide something

that actors can't or is it simply more effective from a cost

perspective?

PAYNTER: Freshness and novelty are the life blood of good communication. At the

moment I am working with an animation company called Shy the Sun on a very big


5

campaign. Last year I made another blend of Live Action and Animation with them

(Bakers Biscuits). They are absolutely brilliant, their work is world class and truly

memorable. The merging of comic book characters and real life has seen a growing

number of amazing films e.g. Hell Boy and Batman. Animated movies per se have

become a highly sophisticated genre of entertainment, aimed at all ages and to great

acclaim. I don't think animation is ever a case of replacing 'real' actors with 'created'

ones... and my experience proves that it is not cheaper, by any stretch of the

imagination. If anything it is the very opposite!

Hilton Treves & Darrin Hofmeyr Interview

1

Hilton Treves & Darrin Hofmeyr





Interviewee: Hilton Treves

Darrin Hofmeyr

Date: 18/11/2010

Place: Hilton Treves’ Office

Black Ginger

InfinArt Building

81 New Church Street

Tamboerskloof

Cape Town

South Africa


2

18 November 2010


Hilton Treves

Darrin Hofmeyr

HOFFMANN: I’ve been speaking mainly to people at Draft FCB, I’m trying to get both

sides of the campaign, from an advertisers’ as well as animators’ perspective.

TREVES: Who did you speak to at Draft?

HOFFMANN: To Rachel Andreotti, Rita Doherty and Brett Morris.

HOFFMANN: Would you consider Mo the Meerkat as South Africa’s token animated

character?

TREVES: Token?

HOFFMANN: The biggest campaign using an animated character?

TREVES: It was an icon, it became an icon. It was very iconic in what it was and it was

very recognizable with the Vodacom brand. It became integral to the Vodacom brand.

HOFFMANN: Do you think Mo, as a character, did the animation industry justice? Do you

think it was a good representation for the average South African to associate animation

with?

HOFMEYR: That’s a tricky one because it was initially, you’ve got the back story of how

it came about and everything, have you?


3

HOFFMANN: Yes, from being an advertisement for the Vodafone live! portal to being

taken over by Vodacom?

HOFMEYR: No, how the character came about?

HOFFMANN: No, I don’t actually.

TREVES: I think, that you need to understand, it’s very important.

HOFFMANN: Ok.

HOFMEYR: There was a launch of Vodafone live! And they needed an advert very

quickly to have the launch of this product and that was the initial one. They went to this

company

HOFFMANN: To AnimMate! ?

HOFMEYR: Ja, and which they used motion capture and the design, I forget where the

design came from

HOFFMANN: So do you know if the advertising company did the design or if it was

AnimMate! ?

TREVES: No, the initial design came from the agency.

HOFFMANN: Ok.

TREVES: The initial design, as a concept sketch.

HOFMEYR: Ja

TREVES: But then, from that, they animated an interpretation of it.

HOFFMANN: Ok so they did consult AnimMate! ?


4

TREVES: Ja.

HOFMEYR: Ja. They made this commercial, which was supposed to be a very quick,

once-‐ off, throw away commercial where the Meerkat was just going to do the striptease

and take off his skin. So no love and effort was put into making a character that had legs

that could be used for three or four years they just made this thing, which in most

people’s respect in the industry is quite hideous. To the lay man, to the people who first

saw it, they thought it was either grotesque and frightening or they loved it, they

thought it was so funny and amusing. So then the next ad that was made, animate did it

again, it was the Conga Line one, where they’re in the streets of Cape Town. That, they

had the motion capture again and, they just slapped it out, used the same Meerkat, got

all the Bryan Habanas and Ryk Neetlings and everything into the ad. And that was great

because he was now in a summer shirt, and he started appearing on people’s cellphones

and wall papers as soon as you bought the cellphone you would have his picture there.

And they started to market all the sports around him. On the website, if it was rugby

season or soccer season they started putting him, Meerkat, the original design Meerkat,

into all these outfit’s. Then in March 2006, they wanted to do another one with him. This

would’ve been his third ad now, they approached director, Bruce Paynter, from CAB

films. He was very keen to do the job, but he wanted to re-‐invent the Meerkat.

HOFFMANN: And he wasn’t into motion capture?

HOFMEYR: Yes, that’s right, exactly. He wanted the appeal of character animation done

by an animator, not by motion capture.

HOFFMANN: But surely motion capture is used only for capturing the primary

animation and then it’s tweaked by an animator?


5

HOFMEYR: Absolutely.

TREVES: That’s the theory, that’s what didn’t happen on the other characters. So they

used it and it looked like a man in a Meerkat suit.

HOFMEYR: Ja. And they also, in their design had the dog leg, which is, you know, the

back dog leg, so it has that

HOFFMANN: So the character basically walks on its toes?

HOFMEYR: So it should be a man on a toe but the motion capture was a guy with a knee

and flat feet.

HOFFMANN: Oh, so it didn’t translate from the motion capture to the rig?

HOFMEYR: So it doesn’t translate so that was the first thing, plus, if you want appeal you

want a character as anthropomorphic as possible, not Pan’s Labyrinth goat legs and

stuff, which is quite scary. So Bruce wanted to re-‐invent it and improve on it. He got the

buy in of Vodacom, at the time Andre Beyers was the marketing manager. And came to

Hilton because he had worked with Hilton before, and I had just started Joburg Black

Ginger and they came to us. And we then worked on redesigning the Meerkat

HOFFMANN: Did you redesign it character wise or just the rig and model?

TREVES: Everything.

HOFMEYR: We started character wise and we pushed it to where it was very, for all of

us and everybody involved, appealing, and made a Marquette which we’ve still got up

there. But they pulled us closer to the original one because they didn’t want people to

get confused. Those Marquettes up there are sort of what we based Mo and Moisha on

eventually.


6

HOFFMANN: So am I correct in saying that you had objections with the original

character design?

HOFMEYR: Ja, everybody did. The agency, although they did not say it in front of their

client

HOFFMANN: They didn’t want to change the face that worked?

HOFMEYR: Ja, they didn’t totally want to loose the audience that loved it by suddenly

changing it so much they . Then we did our first ad and it was fine. Bruce did his second

one which was September/October 2006, which was the one we shot in Strand, on the

beach, dancing on the car. And then at that stage, we were getting, we were slowly

improving the render and everything and trying to fix his rig so that he had cartoony

arms, he could stretch a bit and we were pushing that further. So then came 2007, April,

when we introduced the girl for the first time, still with Bruce Paynter, this was our

third one now. This is when we then tried, ok we’ve done a year now, let’s push the

design a little bit further, refine him a bit more. And it was getting to a much nicer place

in all our heads, in all our opinions. And then, we shot that one in Burgerspark in

Pretoria, with the roller skating with the Blue Bulls girls and stuff. And that I think, was

our favourite one.

TREVES: That was our favourite.

HOFMEYR: Ja. Because everything just worked, by that time Bruce and myself and

Brett and Gerhard Myburgh, creative director on the ads at the time.

HOFFMANN: Yes, I contacted him as well.

HOFMEYR: I think he’s in Australia now?


7

HOFFMANN: Yes, I emailed him.

HOFMEYR: It was a great, collective, sort off, working environment with everybody.

We’d been on three big ads and lots of print campaigns and lots of small little ads and

squeeze backs for the rugby and stuff . We also did a lot of work for Afri-‐Kings because

they were the retail stuff, they handled the A1 Grand Prix and a whole bunch of other

stuff. The roller-‐skating one is all our favourites because we were just so used to

working with each other and everyone knew their part and stuff. And then September

2007, we were going to do our fourth big commercial, the summer for 2007, which was

the one on the boat, and that was with Mike Middleton was the director of that one. And

that was his first one, and edited. All the other three that we’d done were edited by Tim

Goodwin. Its Goodwin, hey? From, um,

TREVES: Premiere Post.

HOFMEYR: This one was, the fourth one we did was completely different. Sabrina from

Sabrina

TREVES: Sabrina O’Sullivan Post Production

HOFMEYR: And Mike Middleton was the director. And they kinda just let us do most of it

because we’d done three before. But then that was it, that was the last one. In the

beginning we were getting direction for the kind of dance moves he was going to do, in

the very first one we did, by the end of it they were just like “Go for it, Darrin, you can do

whatever.” So I was chatting to my mates and stuff , that teach dancing, and asking for

some suggestions, because I was also out of ideas.

HOFFMANN: Choreographing?


8

HOFMEYR: Ja, it was just getting a bit like, what the hell can he do now. Because he

always had to do bigger, better. Every ad, you know, he had to do bigger, better. So he

was starting to do stupid things. Really crazy stuff.

HOFFMANN: More action, more animation?

HOFMEYR: Ja, so that was sort of the story, then he died out as soon as Vodafone bought

out Vodacom they killed him off. Vodafone apparently didn’t, I don’t know what you’ve

heard from Draft FCB, but from what we heard

HOFFMANN: They said Mo longer worked for the brand image.

HOFMEYR: Ja.

TREVES: I think it’s evolution of the brand. I think particular Vodafone came in with a

slightly different positioning where they wanted to take it to. More in terms of the focus

on the personalities of the sports people rather than an icon. And I think that the one

thing that Mo was, Mo was very iconic for South Africa, he was part of the whole

culture, he filled this particular cultural sort of branding and niche. And he was

incredibly popular in the Afrikaans circles more so than the other circles around. He

was very iconic in that regard. And one of the things that we were doing on this at each

stage we couldn’t go to what we did on the end level, right at the beginning, we had to

evolve him, we had to slowly grow him and get people comfortable with his behaviours,

and stuff like that, and if you look at the different stages of animation through it you’ll

see that the animation and sophistication of animation grew dramatically over his

performance levels as he went through the campaign. In terms of the quality of

animation, there is no doubt that motion capture did the character a disservice, because

he is a character, not a human. So, if he was a human, fine, and he was a human


9

character, that’s fine. But he was a character in a real Shrek sense, or the Disney type

sense, he was a character. And as such, he needed to be driven by that kind of

performance which people are comfortable with. So that was the idea to get him in that

kind of zone to make him feel in that space.

HOFFMANN: I realize this campaign was very successful from an advertising

perspective, it did extremely well as far as consumer votes are concerned. From an

animation perspective would you consider it one of your successful campaigns?

TREVES: Absolutely. The Meerkat gave us a lot of insight into certain types of things for

examples. We ended up doing a big campaign for Pepsi and in parallel, Meerkat was

running at the same time, this character called Fido Dido. Fido Dido was for 7up. And in

terms of a character type reel, things we were learning on the one we were applying on

the other. So as things evolved, as things moved, it certainly was there. From an

international marketing point of view, the level of sophistication in terms of animation.

In New York, Meerkat was seen as a really good piece of work. So it was taken and seen

on an international level. There is absolutely no doubt.

HOFFMANN: Was it one of the few opportunities where you got to do full character

animation?

TREVES: No, we’ve done a lot of stuff.

HOFFMANN: Have you?

HOFMEYR: Ja.

TREVES: Ja, we’ve done quite a lot of stuff. I mean, Black Ginger is very focussed in

different aspects visual effects and animation work and character is one of our strong


10

point.

HOFFMANN: Many people I encounter in the animation industry cringe when I mention

this project. Do you think that has got to do with the character design initially?

TREVES: That’s originally to do with the two front end characters.

HOFMEYR: I think what happened was and then Vodacom it was just everywhere,

people were getting sick of it.

HOFFMANN: they might not have been from the exact target market?

HOFMEYR: Yes, I mean, I’m from Pretoria and when I was still living in Pretoria and this

thing was everywhere. They put the Meerkat on two Afrikaans songs, Robbie Vessels

Lieuwloop music video and Dosi’s Ryperd. They put Meerkat in those things because

the Afrikaans community loved it. They’d watch a rugby game at Lofters they’d have the

Meerkat on the big screen or I’d be at a pub in Pretoria and this Meerkat ad would come

on TV and the crowd would get all excited and stuff. So you have those people loving it

and then you’ve got the other people just hating it for, I guess people just get annoyed

by some marketing campaigns, you know. And this thing was everywhere. You couldn’t

drive in this city or any city in South Africa without seeing him and his girlfriend or him

and his bad Hawaiian shirt.

TREVES: I think if you ask people in the animation community, you say to them, ok have

a look in terms of work, you say to them, ok, what is it about the Meerkat campaign that

you hate and you ask them about it

HOFFMANN: They wouldn’t be able to tell you?

TREVES: A few of them might turn around and say, based on the one taking his skin off,


11

it was terrible, it was grotesque, it was shocking. Because of the motion capture type

approach to it. We’ve got a motion capture studio, lets do this with a motion capture

studio, but not giving it personality. If you compare that the last two of the Meerkats

and said to anybody, there it is, ok what’s wrong with that? Nobody can turn around to

you and say why they don’t like it. Is the animation good? Everyone will turn around

and say the animation was brilliant. It was more to do with the initial phase, it was a

shocking thing initially when you saw it. Funny enough the bad stuff sticks with you

more than the good stuff. Cos the good stuff, you’re comfortable with it.

HOFFMANN: That’s true. And maybe by that time people started loosing interest.

TREVES: Yes, a lot of people did. Every campaign has its day. I mean we did in one year

for Pepsi we did 26 commercials for Fido Dido. And eventually after three years they

decided that was it. The character has had its life and it is no longer going to become an

iconic brand part of the Pepsi campaign. The same thing with Vodacom, after 5 years,

nearly six years

HOFFMANN: Did it run for 6 years?

TREVES: Nearly six years that the character was in the market. Eventually people get

tired of it. Very few brands around the world have an animated character that has

sustained such a long period of time. And the one is Cheetos. The Cheeto’s Character

which is part of the whole is part of Frito Lays group of things for the Cheetos product.

But it only applies, funny enough, in certain countries where they’ve now dropped it in

other countries because people got tired but in other countries they still loved it. So the

characterisation and animation association with a particular brand evolves. Even Mc

Donalds dropped their initial character and ended up going to the clown in a clown suit.


12

HOFFMANN: So was Ronald McDonald animated initially?

TREVES: At one point he was an animated character, as a pencil animation. So years

and years back. So he evolved and they took him to a different road. The Kellog’s Rice

Crispies characters, those are still one of the few that have stayed, that have sustained

their longevity over the years. The Frosties Tiger, you know, also Kellogs. Some brands

do have that but who’s the target? It’s the kids. In this case, for Vodafone its adults, it’s a

totally different target market.

HOFFMANN: How long did you have on average have to produce each ad?

TREVES: Six weeks.

HOFFMANN: Do you have any thoughts as to why as opposed to an actor?

TREVES: No, no idea, no reason other than that they wanted something that was

different, that would stand out, that is easy from a cost perspective.

HOFFMANN: Is it really better from a cost perspective?

TREVES: Much better, because your not paying royalties on their pictures, their faces on

posters, all of that kind of thing. So your not paying artist fees. So if we get a character,

like Vodacom had those characters for the Yebo Goggo campaign, the old man and the

guy in the leopard suit.

HOFFMANN: Yes.

TREVES: Just the royalties on those people are enormous. So, on an animated character,

and he becomes so iconic that he becomes the face of a brand, you’re not paying those

absolutely outrageous loyalties.


13

HOFFMANN: Do you think the South African public are more aware of animation after

the campaign?

TREVES: I think so. I think that any kind of exposure that the animation industry gets

helps to go there. And I think because you have something that becomes so iconic,

whether you love it or hate it, you can’t forget it, it stays in your head. And you know

that it is South African in its own right. If you look now, there’s the Telkom Heita

campaign that’s out there. There’s a lot of interesting things that are going to develop

out of that. You are now going to end up going down the whole graffiti road, because of

the way in which they positioned their type of characters., that their animating. And

they’ve got a very, called it an emo –type marketing perspective. The sort of like edgy

animated type theme to things. So it just takes it to another level and a different

position. So, yes, I think its important and the more type of stuff one gets out there the

better.

HOFFMANN: Do you think the animation industry in South Africa is dependant on

advertising revenue to survive?

TREVES: Yes.

HOFFMANN: Do you have any thoughts on what draws advertisers to animation?

TREVES: It actually comes down to cost at the end of the day.

HOFFMANN: Does it?

TREVES: It really does. Its cost, its quick, its re-‐purpose able.

HOFFMANN: But if it cost you six weeks to produce, for example, isn’t it more expensive

than a day or two of filming?


14

TREVES: A day or two of filming costs you half a million rand a day to film.

HOFFMANN: So filming is a lot more expensive than six weeks of animation?

TREVES: Absolutely. Its not necessarily. Let me rephrase it. There’s both sides. There’s

an argument for certain things. On certain types of stuff, animation, if you take a look at

the Baker’s Biscuits commercial,

HOFFMANN: Yes.

TREVES: What we did on that, was about twelve weeks of work, that went into that

campaign. Each character was beautifully designed, but that campaign is going to run

for three years. And royalties are not renewed each year. In that particular scenario, yes.

Everything is gotta have its place. It’s relative costs. Is animation in South Africa reliant

on the animation industry? My answer to that is yes, but, the primary problem that

South Africa has is we do not have a very large feature film animation industry at this

point. There are a couple of companies who have embarked on that roads, who have

put their soul’s on the line to try and get this thing to happen. And if they do happen it

will be great for the South African industry, it will help to grow it. Because the more of

that that happens, the bigger the industry becomes. The commercials industry, is

currently the biggest consumer of visual effects and animation at any point anywhere

in the world. So it doesn’t matter if you are in New York or Australia, or whether you’re

here, they are the ones that are constantly updating and refreshing and doing things.

HOFFMANN: And that have the budget?

TREVES: Correct, the budget and things are better there. Feature films and things are

very few and far between. We don’t have a big enough industry in South Africa for

features. So from a visual effects perspective. We do a number of feature films every


15

now and then, but it’s not sustainable.

HOFFMANN: For an over seas market?

TREVES: Over seas. We’ve done for Warner Brothers, we’ve done for China, we’ve done

for Technicolor. So there’s a couple of different markets. But advertising is certainly

going to be the biggest consumer of animation and visual effect.

170

Appendix B

Description of Attached DVD

There is a DVD that has been included with this document. All six commercials

discussed in chapter three have been placed on this DVD. This DVD is region free and

should play on any DVD player in the world, as well as on computers with DVD playing

software installed.

171

Works Cited

“About us.” BlackGinger.tv. BlackGinger.tv, n.d. Web. 18 August 2010.

“About us.” Vodacom.com. Vodacom, n.d. Web. 26 Dec. 2010

Allaste, Airi-‐Alina & Maarja Kobin. “Hip Hop in Rakvere: The Importance of the Local in

Global Subculture.” Subcultures and New Religious Movements in Russia and East Central

Europe. Ed. Mc Kay, George, et al . Bern: Peter Lang AG, 2009. 87-‐110.Print.

“Alan Knott-‐Craig (Snr).” Who’s Who South Africa. Who’s Who South Africa, n.d. Web 26

Dec. 2009.

Andreotti, Rachel. Personal Interview. 18 May. 2010

-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐. Personal Interview. 26 Nov. 2010.

Amid, Amidi. Cartoon Modern. Style and Design in Fifties Animation. San Francisco:

Chronicle Books, 2006. Print.

Barthes, Roland. Elements of Semiology. Trans. Anette Lovers & Colin Smith. New York:

Hill and Wang, 1968. Print.

-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐“The Rhetoric of the Image.” Visual Culture: The Reader. Ed. Evans,

Jessica & Stuart Hall. London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi: Sage Publications Ltd, 1999.

33-‐40. Print.

Bendazzi, Giannalberto. Cartoons. One Hundred Years of Cinema Animation. Bloomington

& Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 1994. Print.

Benjamin, Walter. “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”. Modern Art

and Modernism: A Critical Anthology. Ed. Frascina, Francis et al. London: Harper & Row

Ltd, 1982. 217-‐226. Print.

Beasley, Ron and Marcel Danesi. Persuasive Signs: the Semiotics of Advertising. Berlin &

New York: Mouton de Gruyter, 2002. Print.

“Best Liked ads 2007 from Millward Brown’s AdTrack.” Bizcommunity.com.

Bizcommunity.com, n.d. Web. 12 Dec. 2010.

172

“BlackGinger wins Gold at the New York Film and Television Awards and Silver at the

London International Awards.” BlackGinger.tv. BlackGinger.tv, n.d. Web. 18 August

2010.

Bloom, Kevin. “Analysis: The Jock of the Bushveld Dilemma”. The Daily Maverick: The

Daily Maverick, 2009. Web. 18 August 2010.

Brauer, Heidei. “People love Brands that don’t let them Down.” Top Brands Survey. Ed.

Johannesburg: The Sunday Times’ Business Times, 2006: 2. Print.

Britten, Sarah. One Nation, One Beer: The Mythology of the New South Africa in

Advertising. A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities at the University of Witwatersrand:

University of the Witwatersrand, 2005. Print.

“Caught up in the Mo-‐Ment.” Vodaworld.co.za. Vodaworld.co.za, n.d. Web. 28 August

2010.

Chandler, Daniel. Semiotics the Basics. London & New York: Routledge, 2002. Print.

“Cheetos 1988.” YouTube, 1988. Web. 7 May 2011.

“Chester Cheetah Cheetos Crunch Commercial.” YouTube, 1988. Web. 7 May 2011.

“Chester Cheetah Cheetos Puff Commercial 1989.” YouTube, 1989. Web. 7 May 2011.

“Cheetos Paws commercial from 1991.” YouTube, 1991. Web. 7 May 2011.

“Cheetos Paws Commercial 1993.” YouTube, 1993. Web. 7 May 2011.

“Cheetos Train Chase.” YouTube, 1991. Web. 7 May 2011.

“Cheetos ‘Any Lengths.’ ” YouTube, 2001. Web. 7 May 2011.

Cohen, Karl. “The Development of Animated TV Commercials in the 1940s.” Animation

Journal 1.1 (1992): 34-‐61. Print.

“Come fly with me, lets fly…” Financialmail.co.za. Financial Mail, 1999. Web. 27 Dec.

2010.

Crafton, Donald. Before Mickey. The Animated Film, 1898-1928. Chicago & London: The

173

University of Chicago Press, 1982. Print.

Crary, Jonathan. Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle, and Modern Culture.

Cambridge & London: MIT Press, 2001. Print.

Crisell, Andrew. An Introductory History of British Broadcasting. Second Edition. London:

Routledge, 2002. Print

Curry, Tony. A Consise History of British Television, 1930-2000.

Darley, Andrew. Visual Digital Culture. Surface Play and Spectacle in New Media Genres.

London & New York: Routledge, 2000. Print.

Doherty, Rita. Personal Interview. 16 Sep. 2010.

Dolby, Nadine. “White Fright: the politics of white youth identity in South Africa.” British

Journal of Sociology of Education 22.1 (2001): 5-‐17. Web. 10 August 2010.

Draftfcb.com. Draftfcb, n.d. Web. 27 Dec. 2010.

Draftfcb.co.za. Draftfcb, n.d. Web. 27 Dec. 2010.

“Draftfcb-‐ Agency Profile.” Adbrands.net. Adbrands, n.d. Web 27 Dec. 2010.

Dyer, Gillian. Advertising as Communication. London & New York: Routledge, 1988.

Print.

Eagleton, Terry. The Illusions of Postmodernism. Oxford & Cambridge: Blackwell

Publishers Inc, 1996. Print

“Eerste Tekenverhaal op Compass te sien.” Die Transvaler [South Africa] 9 March. 1977:

9. Print.

Edgerton, Gary. The Columbian History of American Television. New York: Columbia

University Press, 2007. Print.

“Episode 1: The Art of Persuasion.” Animation Nation. British Broadcasting Corporation.

BBC Four, London. 2005. Television.

174

Evans, Jessica & Stuart Hall. “What is Visual Culture?” Visual Culture: The Reader. Ed.

Evans, Jessica & Stuart Hall. London, Thousand Oaks & New Delhi: Sage Publications Ltd,

1999. 1-‐8. Print.

Jacklin Heather and Peter Vale, eds. Re-imagining the Social in South Africa. Critique,

Theory and Post-Apartheid Society. Scottsville: University of KwaZulu-‐Natal Press, 2009.

Print.

Featherstone, Mike. Consumer Culture & Postmodernism. London, Thousand Oaks & New

Delhi: Sage Publications Ltd, 1991. Print.

Fogg, Rachel & Peter Wicke. Rock Music: Culture, Aesthetics and Sociology. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press Syndicate, 1990. Pint.

“Foote, Cone & Belding Worldwide.” Funding Universe.com. Funding Universe, n.d. Web.

27 Dec. 2010.

Foster, Charles. “You Can’t Touch This. Millward Brown – Best Liked Ads.” The Financial

Mail 1 Jun. 2007: 118. Print.

Frenaye, John. “MC Hammer at Six Flags.” Eyeonannapolis.com. Eyeonannapolis.com,

2009. Web. 4 Jan. 2011.

Furlonger, David. “Morris Major.” The Financial Mail 21 Aug. 2009: 53. Print.

Furniss, Maureen. Art in Motion: Animation Aesthetics. Sydney: John Libbey & Company

Limited, 1998. Print.

García, David. “Embodying Music/ Disciplining Dance/ The Mambo in Havana and New

York City.” Ed. Ballroom, Boogie, Shimmy Sham, Shake: A Social and Popular Dance

Reader. Malnig, Julie. Illinois: The University of Illinois, 2009. 165-‐181. Print.

Goldman, Robert. Reading Ads Socially. London & New York: Routledge, 1992. Print.

Hatch, Thomas. A History of Hip Hop: The Roots of Rap. Minnesota: Red Brick Learning,

2006. Print.

Holborn, Lucy with interviews by Hannah Botsis and Kerwin Lebone. The long Shadow of Apartheid: Race in South Africa since 1994. Johannesburg: The South African Institute for Race Relations, 2010. Print

175

Holburn, Lucy. “Re: The long Shadow of Apartheid: Race in South Africa since 1994.” Message to Kim Hoffmann. 2 March. 2011. E-‐Mail.

Heidegger, Martin. “The Age of the World Picture.” The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. Trans. William Lovitt. Ed. Lovitt, William. London: Garland Publishing Inc, 1977. 115-‐154. Print.

Herbst, Michael. “ “Don’t give me what I ask for, give me what I need” Advertising

Dilemmas in Contemporary South Africa.” South African Visual Culture. Ed. Van Eeden,

Jeanne, and Amanda du Preez. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers, 2005. 12-‐39. Print.

Hernandez, Deborah, et al . Reggaeton. Durham: Duke University Press, 2009. Print.

Hinds, Harold Jr., Marilyn Motz., and Angela Nelson, eds. Popular Culture Theory and

Methodology. A Basic Introduction. Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2006.

Print.

Hofmeyr, Darrin & Hilton Treves. Personal Interview. 18 Nov. 2010.

Huey, Steve. “Please Hammer, Don’t Hurt ‘Em.” AllMusic.com. AllMusic.com, n.d. Web. 4

Jan. 2011.

Interactive Africa. The Life and Times of Vodacom as covered by the Media from 1993-

2007. Print.

Jones, Gillian. “Meerkat Mo knocks ‘em dead.” The Citizen [South Africa] 12 Nov. 2005:

11. Print.

“J-‐Phone to rename J-‐Sky Web Service Vodafone live.” Reuters.com. Reuters.com, 17

September 2003. Web. 12 Apr. 2011.

Kerlow, Isaac. “Creative Human Character Animation.” Animation World Network.

Animation World Network, 2006. Web. 23 Feb 2011.

Koenderman, Tony. “ Die Leeuloop loop. Verskeie groepe hou ál meer van dieselfde

advertensies.” Finweek [ South Africa] 15 Feb. 2007: 82. Print.

Koenderman, Tony. “Likeability Champions. Draftfcb once again shows how to make

people like you.” Finweek (English) [South Africa] 18 Feb. 2010: 54. Print.

176

Koenderman, Tony. Personal Interview. 2 Feb. 2011.

Korkis, Jim. “The Secret of Walt Disney Commercials.” Animation World Network.

Animation World Network, 2006. Web. 20 April 2010.

Koutras, Eleni. The Use of Mobile Phones By Generation Y Students at two Universities in

the City of Johannesburg. A dissertation submitted to the faculty of Business

Management, University of South Africa. Pretoria: University of South Africa, 2006.

Print.

“Living Standards Measure.” Saarf.com. South African Advertising Research Foundation,

n.d. Web. 27 Dec. 2010.

Maggs, Jeremy. “Advertising-‐ Rising above ad nauseum.” The Financial Mail 22 Dec.

2006: 118. Print.

Maltin, Leonard. Of Mice and Magic. A History of American Animated Cartoons. New York,

London & Ontario: Plume Books, 1980. Print.

Mc Carthy, Anna. Ambient Television. Visual Culture and Public Space. Durham and

London: Duke University Press, 2001. Print.

“Meerkat Dances Off With Grand Prix.” Bizcommunity.com. Bizcommunity, 2006. Web.

27 Dec. 2010.

“Meerkat Manor-‐The Next Generation.” Animal.discovery.com. Animal Planet, 2005. Web.

25 April 2011.

Mirzoeff, Nicholas. “Introduction: What is Visual Culture?” An Introduction to Visual

Culture. Ed. Nicolas Mirzoeff. London & New York: Routledge, 1999. 1-‐26. Print.

“Mooi skoot, Mo. Draftfcb slaag weer met innemende advertensie.” Finweek [South

Africa] 1 May 2008: 70. Print.

Morris, Brett. Personal Interview. 23 Sep. 2010.

Musmon, Margaret. World of Dance: Latin & Caribbean Dance. New York: Infobase

Publishing, 2010. Print

“News release-‐ Vodafone Announces H1 2010/11 Results and Strategy Update.”

177

Vodafone.com. Vodafone, 2010. Web. 26 Dec. 2010.

Ossé, Reggie & Gabriel Tolliver. Bling: The Hip Hop Jewellery Handbook. Volume 2006,

Part 2. New York: Bloomsbury, 2006. Print.

“R17m IDC investment in animation”. Screen Africa. Screen Africa Magazine, 14 Aug.

2009. Web. 18 August 2010.

Paynter, Bruce. Personal Interview. 22 Nov. 2010.

Price, Emmett. Hip Hop Culture. California: ABC-‐ Clio Inc, 2006. Print.

Pohorsky, Peter. “Re: Vodacom Meerkat-‐ Academic Research.” Message to Kim

Hoffmann. 28 April. 2011. E-‐mail.

Raugust, Karen. “Animation in Africa: Going beyond the ‘Low-‐Cost’ Option.” Animation

World Network. Animation World Network, 2008. Web. 27 August 2010.

Ryan, Eanonn. “Leading Brands. Who’s due the credit?” The Star [South Africa] 29 Aug.

2009: 13. Print

Roman, James. From Daytime to Primetime: The History of American Television Programs.

United States: Library of Congress-‐in-‐Publication Data, 2005. Print

“Reputations on the line as phone switch-‐on looms.” Weekend Argus [South Africa] 29

May 1994. 17. Print

“SA Academy of Science & Arts honours Draftfcb's De Villiers.” Bizcommunity.com.

Bizcommunity, 2009. Web. 26 Dec. 2010.

“SA advert wins Cannes award.” The Citizen [South Africa] 24 Jun. 2006: 12. Print.

De Saussure, Ferdinand. Course in General Linguistics. Trans. Roy Harris. Paris: Open

Court Publishing Company, 1986. Print.

Sergeant, Melanie. “Cellular Network Switches on Today” Business Day [South Africa] 1

Jun. 1994: 2. Print

Silonda, Vusi. Competitive Rivalry in Telecoms: A Strategic Management Case Study

Between Vodacom and MTN. A research report submitted to the Faculty of Business

178

Administration, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University. Port Elizabeth: Nelson

Mandela Metropolitan University, 2009.

“Singing a brand Song.” Bizcommunity.com. Bizcommunity.com, 7 Feb. 2006. Web. 12

Dec. 2010.

Schutte, Gerhard. “Being African in South Africa: The Dynamics of Exclusion and

Inclusion. Social Identities 6.2 (2000): 207-‐222. Web. 10 August 2010.

Shapujee, Shanaz. A Historical Enquiry into the Animation Unit, Situated within the South

African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC) 1976-1988. A Research Report submitted to

the faculty of Arts, University of the Witwatersrand. Johannesburg: University of the

Witwatersrand, 2008. Print.

Schirato, Tony and Jen Webb. Understanding the Visual. London: Sage Publications,

2007. Print.

Sim, Stuart. “Postmodernism and Philosophy.” The Routledge Companion to

Postmodernism. Second Edition. Ed. Stuart Sim. London & new York: Routledge, 1998. 3-‐

12. Print.

Sowaga, Dulile. “Maurice the Meerkat steals show, is likely to be around for some time.”

City Press [South Africa] 19 Nov. 2005: 4. Print.

Strinati, Dominic. An Introduction to Studying Popular Culture. London & New York:

Routledge, 2000. Print.

-‐ -‐ -‐ -‐. An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture. London & New York: Routledge,

1995. Print.

“Sunday Times-‐ Generation Next Youth Brand Survey.” The Sunday Times [South Africa]

24 Apr. 2005: 1-‐16. Print.


30 Jun. 2006: 1-‐16. Print.


27 May. 2007: 1-‐19. Print.

179

“Ster Adfilms get all Animated” The Clarion News’ Press, Advertising and Radio Review

[South Africa] April. 1970. Print.

Telotte, J. “Man and Superman. The Fleischer Studio Negotiates the Real.” Quarterly

Review of Film and Video 27.1 (2010): 290-‐98. Print.

“Top 15 Consolidated Agency Networks.” Advertising Age. Advertising Age, 2010. Web.

27 Dec. 2010.

“Top Brands Survey.” The Sunday Times’ Business Times [South Africa] 25 Sep. 2005: 1-‐

47. Print.

“Top Brands Survey.” The Sunday Times’ Business Times [South Africa] 3 Sep. 2006: 1-‐

48. Print.

“Top Brands Survey.” The Sunday Times’ Business Times [South Africa] 19 Aug. 2007: 1-‐

46. Print.

“TV ads we’ve loved for 25 years.” The Saturday Star [South Africa] 6 Feb. 2010: 17.

Print.

Vigar, Debbie. “Oros-‐ the Original Orange Squash.” South African Marketing Cases for

Decision Makers. Third Edition. Ed. Nel, Deon & Leyland Pitt. Cape Town: Juta & Co. Ltd,

2001. 91-‐7. Print.

Vincent, Louise. “The limitations of ‘inter-‐racial contact’: Stories from young South

Africa.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 31.8 (2008): 1426-‐1451. Web. 10 August 2010.

“Vodacom Group Limited Annual Report-‐ for the year ended 31 March 2009.”

Vodacom.com. Vodacom.com, 2009. Web. 27 August 2010.

“Vodacom Group Limited Annual Report-‐ for the year ended 31 March 2008.”

Vodacom.com. Vodacom.com, 2009. Web. 27 August 2010.

“Vodacom Mobile Media.” Marketing Mix [South Africa] 21 Jul. 2009. Web.

“Vodacom’s Vodafone live! pass two million user-‐mark.” Marketing Mix [South Africa] 4

Apr. 2008. Web.

180

Vodafine live!-‐ Mobile Internet Advertising Platform.” Vodacommobilemedia.co.za.

Vodacom Mobile Media, n.d. Web. 28 Jan. 2010.

Walt Disney Treasures. Walt Disney on the Front Lines: The War Years. Dir. Ben

Sharpsteen & Bill Justice. Narrated by Leonard Maltin. Buena Vista Home

Entertainment, 2004. DVD.

Watkins, Samuel. Hip Hop Matters. Politics, Pop Culture and the Struggle for the Soul of a

Movement. Boston: Beacon Press, 2005. Print.

Qoza, Siyabulela. “BEE group puts R120m into FCB advertising.” Sowetan [South Africa]

21 Aug. 2003: 9. Print.

“Yuppie.” The Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.

A Critical! Investigation! of! an! Animated South! African ... · A Critical! Investigation! of! an! Animated South! African! Advertising! Campaign:!Vodacom’s!Mo#the#MeerkatCampaign2005>2007!

Documents